The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Does Russia Now Have Superior Military Technology?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_736498807

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Do you think his assessment is accurate?” was the subject line of an email I got from a good friend recently. The email referred to the article by Paul Craig Roberts “One Day Tomorrow Won’t Arrive” which claimed that “the US military is now second class compared to the Russian military“. The article then went on to list a number of Russian weapons systems which were clearly superior to their US counterparts (when those even existed). My reply was short “Basically yes. The US definitely has the quantitative advantage, but in terms of quality and training, Russia is way ahead.It all depends on on specific scenarios, but yes, PCR is basically spot on“. This email exchange took place after an interesting meeting I had with a very well informed American friend who, in total contrast to PCR, insisted that the US had complete military supremacy over any other country and that the only thing keeping the US from using this overwhelming military might was that US leaders did not believe in the “brutal, unconstrained, use of force”. So what is going on here? Why do otherwise very well informed people have such totally contradictory views?

First, a disclaimer. To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Alas, I don’t. So what follows is entirely based on open/public sources, conversations with some personal contacts mixed in with some, shall we say, educated guesswork. Still, I am confident that what follows is factually correct and logically analyzed.

To sum up the current state of affairs I would say that the fact that the US armed forces are in a grave state of decay is not as amazing by itself as is the fact that this almost impossible to hide fact is almost universally ignored. So let’s separate the two into “what happened” and “why nobody seems to be aware of it”.

What happened

Let’s begin at the beginning: the US armed forces were never the invincible military force the US propaganda (including Hollywood) would have you believe they have been. I looked into the topic of the role of the western Allies in my “Letter to my American friend” and I won’t repeat it all here. Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans (the Soviets, in contrast, had to move their entire industrial base to the Urals and beyond, as for the Germans, they had to produce under a relentless bombing campaign). The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped (quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively) than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies. And, yes, this did give a strong advantage to US forces, but hardly made them in any way “better” by themselves.

After WWII the US was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the US enjoyed a situation close to quasi total monopoly. That, again, hugely benefited the US armed forces but it soon became clear that in Korea and Vietnam that advantage, while real, did not necessarily result in any US victory. Following Vietnam, US politicians basically limited their aggression to much smaller countries who had no chance at all to meaningfully resist, never mind prevail. If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam (see here or here) we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countries.

Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War and the Global War on Terror when US politicians clearly believed in their own propaganda about being the “sole superpower” or a “hyperpower” and they engaged in potentially much more complex military attacks including the full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars will go down in history as case studies of what happens when politicians believe their own propaganda. While Dubya declared victory as soon as the invasion was completed, it soon became clear to everybody that this war was a disaster from which the US has proved completely unable to extricate itself (even the Soviets connected the dots and withdrew from Afghanistan faster than the Americans!). So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)

  1. They are big, way bigger than any other
  2. They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
  3. They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
  4. They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
  5. They control the oceans and strategic choke points

Is that enough to win a war?

Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.

ORDER IT NOW

If we accept Clausewitz’s thesis that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” then it becomes clear that the US has not won a real war in a long, long time and that the list of countries willing to openly defy Uncle Sam is steadily growing (and now includes not only Iran and the DPRK, but also Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Venezuela and even Russia and China). This means that there is an emerging consensus amongst the countries which the US tries to threaten and bully into submission that for all the threats and propaganda the US is not nearly as formidable enemy as some would have you believe.

Why nobody seems to be aware of it

The paradoxical thing is that while this is clearly well understood in the countries which the US is currently trying to threaten and bully into submission, this is also completely ignored and overlooked inside the United States itself. Most Americans, including very well informed ones, sincerely believe that their armed forces are “second to none” and that the US could crush any enemy which would dare disobey or otherwise defy the AngloZionist Empire. Typically, when presented with evidence that the USAF, USN and NATO could not even defeat the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo or that in Afghanistan the US military performance is very substantially inferior to what the 40th Soviet Army achieved (with mostly conscripts!), my interlocutors always reply the same thing: “yeah, maybe, but if we wanted we could nuke them!“. This is both true and false. Potential nuclear target countries for the US can be subdivided into three categories:

  1. Countries who, if nuked themselves, could wipe the US off the face of the earth completely (Russia) or, at least, inflict immense damage upon the US (China).
  2. Those countries which the US could nuke without fearing retaliation in kind, but which still could inflict huge conventional and asymmetric damage on the US and its allies (Iran, DPRK).
  3. Those countries which the US could nuke with relative impunity but which the US could also crush with conventional forces making the use of nukes pointless (Venezuela, Cuba).

And, of course, in all these cases the first use of nukes by the US would result in a fantastic political backlash with completely unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences. For example, I personally believe that using nukes on Iran would mark the end of NATO in Europe as such an action would irreparably damage EU-US relations. Likewise, using nukes on the DPRK would result in a huge crisis in Asia with, potentially, the closure of US bases in Korea and Japan. Others would, no doubt, disagree :-)

The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless (I say almost, because in the real world the US cannot simply rely on the mental sanity and goodwill of other nations; so, in reality, the US nuclear arsenal is truly a vital component of US national security).

Which leaves the Navy and the Army. The USN still controls the high seas and strategic choke points, but this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially in the context of local wars. Besides, the USN is still stubbornly carrier-centric, which just goes to show that strategic vision comes a distant second behind bureaucratic and institutional inertia. As for the US Army, it has long become a kind of support force for Special Operations and Marines, something which makes sense in tiny wars (Panama, maybe Venezuela) but which is completely inadequate for medium to large wars.

What about the fact that the US spends more on “defense” (read “wars of aggression”) than the rest of the planet combined? Surely that counts for something?

Actually, no, it does not. First, because most of that money is spent on greasing the pockets of an entire class of MIC-parasites which make billions of dollars from the “bonanza” provided by that ridiculously bloated “defense” budget. The never mentioned reality is that compared to the USA, even the Ukrainian military establishment looks only “moderately corrupt”!

[Sidebar: you think I am exaggerating? Ask yourself a simple question: why does the US need 17 intelligence agencies while the rest of the world usually need from 2 to 5? Do you really, sincerely, believe that this has anything to do with national security? If you do, please email me, I got a few bridges to sell to you at great prices! Seriously, just the fact that the US has about 5 times more "intelligence" agencies than the rest of the planet is a clear symptom of the the truly astronomical level of corruption of the US "national security state"]

In weapons system after weapons system, we see cases in which the overriding number one priority is to spend as much money as possible as opposed to delivering a weapon system that soldiers could actually fight with. When these systems are engaged, they are typically engaged against adversaries which are two to three generations behind the USA, and that makes them look formidable. Not only that, but in each case the US has a huge numerical advantage (hence the choice of small country to attack). But I assure you that for real military specialists the case for the superiority of US weapons systems in a joke. For example, French systems (such as the Rafale or the Leclerc MBT) are often both better and cheaper than their US equivalents, hence the need for major bribes and major “offset agreements“.

The Russian military budget is tiny, at least compared to the US one. But, as William Engdal, Dmitrii Orlov and others have observed, the Russians get a much bigger bang for the buck. Not only are Russian weapon systems designed by soldiers for soldiers (as opposed to by engineers for bureaucrats), but the Russian military is far less corrupt than the US one, at least when mega-bucks sums are concerned (for petty sums of money the Russians are still much worse than the Americans). At the end of the day, you get the kind of F-35 vs SU-35/T-50 or, even more relevantly, the kind of mean time between failure or man-hours to flight hour ratios we have seen from the US and Russian forces over Syria recently. Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate executing the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria has achieved. Still, the fact remains that if the Americans wanted it they could keep hundreds of aircraft in the skies above Syria whereas the tiny Russian Russian Aerospace task never had more than 35 combat aircraft at any one time: the current state of the Russian military industry simply does not allow for the production of the number of systems Russia would need (but things are slowly getting better).

So here we have it: the Americans are hands down the leaders in quantitative terms; but in qualitative terms they are already behind the Russians and falling back faster and faster with each passing day.

Do the US military commanders know that?

Of course they do.

But remember what happened to Trump when he mentioned serious problems in the US military? The Clinton propaganda machine instantly attacked him for being non-patriotic, for “not supporting the troops”, for not repeating the politically obligatory mantra about “we’re number one, second to none” and all the infantile nonsense the US propaganda machine feeds those who still own a TV at home. To bluntly and honestly speak about the very real problems of the US armed forces is much more likely to be a career-ending exercise than a way to reform a hopelessly corrupt system.

There is one more thing. Not to further dwell on my thesis that Americans are not educated enough to understand basic Marxist theory, but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They. therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes. For example, when they compliment themselves on having “the most powerful and capable military in the history of mankind” (they love that kind of language), they don’t even realize that that this alleged superiority will inevitably generate its own contradiction and that this strength would therefore also produce its own weakness. Well-read American officers, and there are plenty of those, do understand that, but their influence is almost negligible when compared with the multi-billion dollar and massively corrupt superstructure they are immersed in. Furthermore, I am absolutely convinced that this state of affairs is unsustainable and that sooner or later there will appear a military or political leader which will have the courage to address these problems frontally and try to reform a currently petrified system. But the prerequisite for that will probably have to be a massive and immensely embarrassing military defeat for the US. I can easily imagine that happening in case of a US attack on Iran or the DPRK. I can guarantee it if the US leadership grows delusional enough to try to strike at Russia or China.

But for the time being its all gonna be “red, white and blue” and Paul Craig Roberts will remain a lone voice crying in the desert. He will be ignored, yes. But that does not change the fact that he is right.

P.S. As for myself, I want to dedicate this song by Vladimir Vysotskii to Paul Craig Roberts and to all the other “Cassandras” who have the ability to see the future and the courage to warn us about it. They usually end up paying a high price for their honesty and courage.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, American Military 
Hide 455 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Randal says:

    To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Alas, I don’t.

    And the reality is that anybody who has access to the former has only limited access to the latter, and vice versa. So all claims of certainty in this kind of assessment should be viewed with great scepticism. That’s not all that important when we’re just debating whose speculative analysis is the more convincing, but it becomes vital when people are trying to insist that a particular war can safely be fought – such as the likes of Bannon and the parts of the US military establishment who insist that a “limited war” with China can safely be fought now, and supposedly must be fought in the next few years because after that it will be too late for it to be safely fought. The latter is true, but the greatest and best experts on the planet can’t say with any confidence what the outcome of even a “limited war” with China would be, nor give any plausible guarantee that their limits would be observed.

    Such men – which evidently by his own words includes Bannon, should absolutely be kept out of government as a matter of the highest priority.

    Typically, when presented with evidence that the USAF, USN and NATO could not even defeat the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo…….If we accept Clausewitz’s thesis that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” then it becomes clear that the US has not won a real war in a long, long time

    Seem to be a double standard here. If the Serbians were “not defeated” when they fought the NATO air forces to a standstill but lost Kosovo, which was what they were fighting over, then the US was not defeated in Iraq when it destroyed the Iraqi military and occupied the county but failed subsequently to impose a fully subordinate government on the country, or when it successfully engineered the overthrow of the Taliban and gained free access to Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda there but failed to make the country safe for feminists and American-style gays afterwards.

    The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless

    An argument against any need for nuclear weapons best put forward, in my experience (and I don’t except the British CND, who included Bertrand Russell amongst their ranks), by Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Personally I’m with Saker on this and I’d still want my country to have a nuclear deterrent, but it’s quite plausible that Iran’s elite does not agree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Narwan
    Serbia didn't lose Kosovo due to the war with Nato. It actually withdrew under a UN resolution which explicitly aknowledged Kososvo as part of Serbia.
    Unfortunately for the Serbs (and the rest of the world) the US and its european lackeys then later reneged on this deal. Once again showing that they are absolutely untrustworthy and that when national security is at stake you should never make a diplomatic deal with the US (such as giving up WMD's).
    NATO was defeated on the field. It was through its usual nefarious diplomatic dealings that they later 'gained' Kosovo (although legally Kosovo is not independent but still part of Serbia).
    , @Joe Wong
    the greatest and best experts on the planet can’t say with any confidence what the outcome of even a “limited war” with China would be, nor give any plausible guarantee that their limits would be observed.,
    But one thing can be guaranteed is that the USA will be the side that cannot observe the limit once the USA on the losing side real or perceived, because all the USA military men and war mongers are Ramble morons like Curtis E. LeMay type of psychopathic nuts and they believe the USA homeland is immune from wars, wars always fought on other people's land, and their industrial might will overwhelm all enemies.

    Even the POTUS controls the key to the nuclear weapons but generals will launch nuclear weapons unilaterally once they are on the losing side. To the American politicians, generals and large portion of the population war is a game of win or loss like pro sports, win is everything, everything else is inconsequential.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2062576
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The original Cassandra of Greek mythology was young, female and beautiful. Not quite PCR.

    As for seeing the future next year we can all celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Apocalypsism.:

    http://endoftheworldsurvivalguide.com/DrPaulCraigRoberts.html

    Of course if the end is near there’s only one truly American thing to sing:

    Read More
    • Replies: @uslabor
    You certainly scored points by setting us straight about Cassandra -good for you!
    , @jacques sheete

    As for seeing the future next year we can all celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Apocalypsism.:
     
    Yes, the sky is always falling. Here's another boy crying wolf or izzit the Izzy Chickenshit Little?:

    Netanyahu is on record as early as 1992 claiming that Iran was “close” to having a nuke.
    Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 25 years ago.
    1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
    1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
    1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
    1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
    Etc., etc…
    http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/09/21/1992-breaking-news-netanyahu-says-iran-close-to-nuclear-weapon-veterans-today/

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Randal says:

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans

    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th – the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals’ wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US’s success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.

    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the “Clausewitzian” broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US “won” in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren’t the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    Read More
    • Agree: Lemurmaniac
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual 'Pact of Steel' between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia's technical capital). That's why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn't really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin's vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington's European presence to the British Isles).

    , @The Scalpel
    "Whether the US “won” in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. "

    Everybody knows the motivation was to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq no longer possesses WMD's so the US won! Small caveat. There were never WMD's so the war was unnecessary. The military industrial complex did make a killing though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose
    , @dearieme
    "the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation". Defeated only with allies, though:

    WWI was won by the British and French, welcome though the American troops undoubtedly were.

    WWII against Germany was won first by the British hanging on by their fingernails and then by the Red Army taking huge casualties to expel the Germans and then conquer them.

    Even the US triumph against Japan depended in part on most of the Japanese army being tied down in China throughout the war.
    , @pyrrhus
    A key fact not mentioned by the Saker...The US armed forces are rotten to the core due to feminism, diversity signaling, and the resulting complete lack of standards at West Point, Annapolis and in combat areas. Women are being allowed into combat posts, as officers, without meeting the physical or mental standards, when every army in the world has learned that they create nothing but strife and diversions, and many of them get pregnant. There is also the fact that our multi-billion dollar carriers are nothing but sitting ducks for missiles, torpedoes, and energy weapons, and become more moribund every day as technology advances...The US conventional forces are a paper tiger who can defeat 3d world armies at a fantastic cost, but can't defeat guys on donkeys in Afghanistan.
    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.
     
    hmmm. I'd say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.
    Saker says on his page he's studying theology. There's 3 Russian Orthodox monasteries on Mt. Athos he can go to navel gaze, and they really are the pros there.

    It is an altogether worthwhile and proper discussion for everyone to wonder why we have so many deployments, like in what world of even perfectly conventional Republicrat thinking does it make any sense that we are so deployed, in so many places. We will be stronger - deployed less.

    Another worthwhile question is why the hell anyone is talking about a 300 ship navy when we can't keep 1/3rd of the current one sailing and why 50% of its planes aren't flightworthy. Then there's the F35.

    All of those are good questions. A rarely deployed US military, with a smaller navy, with 1/3 of its ships deployed 100% of the time and in full readiness, with 80% of its planes flightworthy, is a military Russia has no stomach to test.

    But then - again - why the hell do we need to think about fighting Russia? Yes, yes - I know there are 20 answers and the response is: we shouldn't fight Russia, and Russia shouldn't fight us. It's in neither country's interests and only a damn fool thinks otherwise.

    As to Saker - and every, silly, little, puissant article he insists on publishing ... do this:

    Imagine you are a US Marine, Army Ranger, or other manner of deployed infantry or airmobile unit - and go ahead and imagine that it is in one of these deployments that do nothing at all for US interests - day to day you do your thing and you know what your thing is and so do your comrades - and every once in awhile there's a death in Yemen or Niger or Libya - and they are kind of like the exceptions that prove the rule, and meanwhile you know your thing, and you know what's going on, and you know how war works.

    And you know: Saker is completely full of it.

    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    The Americans never fought the Germans on anything like equal terms, they only entered the actual fray well after Germany’s fate was already sealed.
    , @Anonymous
    I agree this is some of the American advantage, but not all of it.

    American superiority in manufacturing from the Civil War and up to fairly modern times, let us say the 1970s, was based not only on the size and security of the industrial base but a certain kind of thinking and an ability to implement it not possible in Europe. many of the people involved were first or second generation immigrants from England, Scotland, France, Germany, Holland, and of course by no means least Russia (and other nations of the former Soviet bloc). Some of them were old line WASP-Americans too.

    There is no one in firearms design, for instance, to equal the Mormon gunsmith, John Moses Browning. Browning's designs are still in production and several are best in class without question.

    Although most all of these individuals were essentially European, none of them could have achieved what they did in Europe.

    Even in England, WWII production gives us great insights. The British produced the superb Spitfire fighter with its magnificent RR Merlin engine. Today a Spitfire is worth millions as both a historical artifact and a magnificent airplane for the well heeled enthusiast to fly, and in its time it defeated the Luftwaffe over Britain and played a huge role in the air war. But....the American P-51 Mustang , once fitted with the Merlin engine with its two stage, two speed centrifugal blower, proved a better fighter overall. It could be built in half the shop floor time with half the (wo)man-hours with less skilled personnel, was easier to repair (ask any warbird restoration firm: many have current experience with both types) and in its later, D variant could outrun most later Marks of Spitfire despite their having the 36 liter Griffon engine in lieu of the 27 liter Merlin.

    But....although the United States had the fine V-1710 Allison engine, the RR Merlin was unquestionably superior for fighter use where turbosuperchargers couldn't be accomodated, because it had a much more sophisticated supercharger system. Packard in the United States therefore was licensed to build the Merlin engine.

    Packard had to build the engine so that all parts would interchange with the Rolls Royce version of the engine perfectly. This was an immense task for two reasons: each Merlin had much hand fitting of clearances and settings where an American engine would be made with full interchangeability of parts, and further, the RR Merlin like all British products was built with Whitworth threaded nuts, bolts and fittings whereas American products typically used an entirely different range of parts which in no way interchanged (UNC and UNF threads, plus a few others in places.) Taps, dies, broaches and so forth for Whitworth threads were not made in the US and given the war situation the Brits could barely meet their own needs. Packard therefore had to make all the nuts, bolts, fittings and so forth themselves as well as make the tooling to do it inhouse.

    This, was a job that no other nation's industrial base could have a single plant do. If it had to be repeated today, even with the sophisticated CNC equipment now available it would be considered commercially prohibitive.

    Other good examples are the production of the M-1 Carbine and the M1911 .45 pistol by numerous contractors, with every part fully interchangeable with any from any other contractor.

    American engineering benefitted from two distinct things in all these. Top engineers and skilled workers from all the major countries came over and had the opportunity to compete with other, and there were no "old country" guilds to artificially restrict the thinking of manufacturing engineers. And the most skilled craftsmen were the toolmakers, die sinkers and patternmakers that made the tooling: the skill was made into the tooling so the actual work could be done by less skilled production people. Old time scraping and fitting was not used, at least not anymore than could not be eliminated completely.

    The downside was that the focus was exclusively on building large numbers of "pretty good" designs even when there were known flaws, where better R&D would have resulted in a far superior product.

    The P-38 Lightning was a good example. As good as a fighter as it was in the air, if an engine failed on takeoff usually the airplane crashed and often the pilot was killed. By 1944, it was realized that the problem was because the landing gear doors tool a long time to cycle and were very draggy during the cycle and also that the Curtiss electric propeller, superb on a four engine airplane or on a single engine fighter where fast feathering was not especially critical, was a killer on twin engine aircraft in a takeoff engine failure because it took many seconds to feather. Neither issue was ever addressed.

    However, overall, no nation could produce war materiel in both the quantity and quality than the United States could......back when it did, in fact , manufacture.

    My advice to Putin: Make all your own consumer goods, and make them really well. And pursue export markets for civil aircraft and other high value items. That's how you build a manufacturing base.
    , @Godfree Roberts
    "the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. "

    The US did not defeat either Germany or Japan. Russia defeated Japan before D Day and Russia and China together defeated Japan. The US was a lamb in the fighting but took the lion's share of the spoils and the glory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. peterAUS says:

    Disagree with most of the article.
    No desire whatsoever to regurgitate why; debated several times so far in some other threads.

    BTW, good posts Randal, IMHO.

    Good luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Cheers, Peter.

    As you say, old ground. But hopefully that means opinions are being refined to take into account valid points made by the other side :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Israel Shamir reported at the beginning of the Syrian campaign that missiles fired towards Syria were intercepted and deflected harmlessly and a joint Russian and Chinese naval force was involved. He reported last year a Russia jet disabled a US warship by aiming a device that acted on the copper in the ship. Shortly after all US carriers went into dry dock for repairs.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/bouncing-along-on-juggernaut/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. The coming collapse of the petrodollar does not bode well for the US economy in general or the US military in specific. Let’s check back in a few years when gold is $5000 an ounce and one BTC costs 20K.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Absolutely right thomas: should the US lose its reserve currency status & should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.
    , @Dicky Cone
    I've been expecting something like that for the last twenty years or so. Seems to always be just around the corner but never actually gets here.
    , @CanSpeccy

    The coming collapse of the petrodollar does not bode well for the US economy in general or the US military in specific.
     
    On the contrary, it will make US manufacturing internationally competitive once again. As for military inadequacy, the issue is not the petrodollar but political stupidity (e.g., Saddam's nukular bombs), stupidity in weapons system acquisition (e.g., the F-35) and a demoralizing absence of ruling elite commitment to military service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. It doesn’t matter.

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    This is why Globalists are pushing all this anti-Russian hysteria. If Americans are made to think Russia is the enemy, then IF war breaks out between the US and Russia, Americans will be totally for a War Economy.

    US has resources 20x that of Russia.

    So, Russia must be defensive and avoid war with US at any cost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.
     

    That's seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world's workshop?

    If and when there were a "limited war" with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    U.S. power - indeed, all major countries' power - have been degraded over the past 50 or so years for two reasons.

    First, nuclear deterrence makes any major war somewhat inconceivable. Also, Americans would never stomach the massive losses a major war against Russia or China would entail. We get the vapors over a few thousand men dying over a decade. What happens when tens of thousands of our guys are getting killed over a weekend, over and over and over.

    Wouldn't happen. I also suspect that Russia and China would have a tough time with that as well.

    Second, smaller countries now have a tried and true blueprint for defeating major powers (except, perhaps, China): Don't fight like Western countries, fight in the traditional Eastern style. Avoid large, open area, decisive battles. Let them roll into your country. Pull you fighters into the mountains or the jungle or hidden in large cities. Let things settle down, then begin the real war. Harass their troops. Draw them into ambushes. Kill their local puppet leaders. Don't hurt civilians (except, of course, local puppets) but do force your opponent to kill civilians during battles.

    Always remember, we live here, they don't. Grind them down and they will leave.

    That plan has worked repeatedly. The only powerful country that has managed to stall that plan is Israel with the Palestinians, but that's mainly because the Jews, in fact, do live there, or, at least, next door, so it's worth continuing the fight.

    Eventually, the U.S. will pull out of Afghanistan with very little to show for its effort, defeated by a bunch of goat-herders. We'll also leave Iraq in God knows what condition.

    Now, if the U.S. had any sense, it'd understand that it is capable to doing some serious damage to the people and their supporters running a country. Basically, we tell some group running a country, "Can we take over and rebuild your country so that it's a functioning ally of the U.S., probably not. But we can destroy you and your extended family so some other group has a good chance of taking over. Your country will still be a shithole and hate us, but someone else will be running the show. Therefore, you should play ball."

    That's not an insignficant amount of power. But this idea that we can come in and rebuild a country is stupid.
    , @Che Guava
    You are also having a next-gen fighter-bomber, F-35, that is ridiculously overpriced, not much good, costs an immense amount per plane, and is 60% or more of the time, stuck on the ground, or deck.

    Also a Navy where officers are too busy flirting with each other on the bridge to avoiding disastrous collisions, with deaths of many sailors.

    It is seeming to me to be a bad joke.
    , @Anon
    The march of the obnoxious (and stupid) psychopaths in the highest echelons of the US power: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    "On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes"

    The usual expression of "pious" US deciders, "...an overwhelming influence towards world peace…” The US has become the paragon of amorality and hypocrisy

    , @c matt
    How many of our parts are made in China?

    As for depth, what depth in manpower? Are you talking about the welfare recipients, the illegal aliens, or SJWs? How many rednecks do you think are left, and how many would deploy for our "diversity" generals?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I think, Saker, that you mistake the role of “war” in America today. The point is not to win. If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip.

    As in so many things, the progressive Germans showed the way. We learned from Hitler that the only way to avoid depressions, maintain full employment while giving bankers a free hand, stimulate research and development while creating steady demand to prop up domestic industry is through ever increasing military expenditures. As was demonstrated during the Roosevelt administration and in Japan today government spending on infrastructure just won’t provide enough demand to keep things ticking along smoothly. The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism.

    Americans have long had a reputation for being overoptimistic; some say, naively so. They consistently overestimate the power of positive thinking. This pragmatism works until one day, it doesn’t.

    But don’t underestimate America, Saker. When the dross has burned off, when today’s Washington D.C. posers are ground to dust, there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today. But under the right conditions they will emerge. America, like Russia, was a wild frontier country not too long ago. Those were some hard-bitten men who swept the Indians off the plains, cleared timber, plowed soil with mules, hewed logs and fished offshore in small boats. Their grandsons live today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip
     
    THAT'S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really? And in the present day, faggy, feminist, transgendered United States which has been putting the kind of MEN you're talking about OUT of the military in favor of the feminist, faggy and tranny, where are you to find these 20,000,000 men? Or even 2,000,000? It's because of the high percentage of the faggy, feminist and tranny that we don't even HAVE 2,000,000 able-bodied ACTUAL men left in this country of the sort of stuff of the men in those pictures.

    Yeah, the MIC is fatally flawed, has been since the beginning of Gee-Whiz widget military budgets, but the overriding factor is the people you would put to sea, to the air, to the ground. And the United States doesn't pack the necessary human resources for that sort of thing anymore. From the Generals and Admirals down, the society is too weak, too obese and again, far too feminist, faggy and tranny. And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They're having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Back to the Generals and Admirals, I'm waiting for the losers in the Pentagon who lose wars to lose jobs, prestige and Stars and bars. The losers in the Intel apparatus can't catch anyone, the police can't protect us even from our own feral Negros, the military is hopelessly corrupt and faggy. That's about it in a nutshell.

    We better start polishing up those shiny rebuilt B-61s, because outside of beating third-world shitholes, that's the only way our military is scary anymore.
    , @Vidi

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip.
     
    How would you transport that army? Even if you had enough transports, would they survive the submarines, sea mines, and missiles near the enemy's shores?
    , @jbwilson24
    " there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today"

    Umm, the USA is no longer the nation it used to be in terms of manpower. You are showing pictures from when the bulk of the population was rural, before TV and computer games. Low incidence of diabetes, obesity, etc etc. Modern Americans are not the same. If you go to the rural areas they have major drug abuse problems that disqualify a lot of the potential recruits from enlisting.
    , @AndrewR
    Most of those men likely never had children. Of the ones that did, almost all of their grandsons have been dead for years, and the ones remaining are almost certainly all elderly, senile and incontinent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Cyrano says:

    I think that Pierre de Coubertin would be proud of US for living according to the Olympic principle: It’s not important to win, but to participate. And then let someone else win the wars and then take credit for it.

    Like in WW2 when USSR did all the fighting and then after the war they discovered that communism is not “democratic”. The shock there, good think that they found out that in time to start the Cold war and prevent their former undemocratic allies from “taking over the world”.

    Then in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    Of course soon after they started using Islam to fight their wars for them, they also conveniently discovered that they too are not democratic, so the war on terror started in order to make sure that their “allies” don’t make too many gains at the expense of democracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @theMann
    Gee, I must of missed the history where the Russians fought at Iwo Jima, Manila, and Okinawa, every battle of which would have been bloodier than Stalingrad if the Japanese could have resupplied.

    The Russians fought, on the whole, rather poorly, a single front war on their own terrain against a known opponent.


    US forces fought a multi-front war against two opponents above and below two oceans, while fighting on the ground in multiple locations of Africa, Europe, multiple Pacific islands, SE Asia and God knows where else. All this while supplying the British, French, Australian, Dutch, Chinese, and yes Russian, armies with massive amounts of material aid (what do you think 400,000 trucks are worth in a war of movement?), the greatest logistic achievement of all time. And did it all while managing about 1\100th the casualties of the other combatants in similar situations.


    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.



    As far as the present, past and future are concerned, "the spiritual to the materiel is as a force of ten to one", will always be true. Our Navy will always be better than their Navy, our Air Force will always be at least as good as their Air Force, and if you put 10 US infantry men against 10 Russian infantry men, we would win 9 to 1. And for this simple reason: The Russians may be better at dying than we are, but we are WAY better killers than they are. Them, or anyone else.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    ...in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.
     
    I'm experiencing that feeling you get, when someone else impugns your country, and instead of responding with a hearty "Fuck you!", I feel more inclined to note "What a burn..."
    , @anonymous
    Sheesh! All this chatter of each other’s superiority over weapons of mass destruction! Like killing and maiming people in the hundreds of millions is something to aspire towards? It is not like those weapons have never been used too... and, if not sure, you may want to look up who used them.

    What a sickening bunch of satanic degenerates, many of those living in pale-faced societies are…

    And then infidels scoff snidely at the quote/unquote, peaceful religion? Can you genius intellectuals find any irony in that?

    Anyway, if not for the machinations of the white supremacist ChrizzyJuden evildoers, the quote/unquote peaceful religion would actually prove to be no more or no less peaceful than others... considering that it is simply being followed by fallible humans.

    Not so the Chrizzies and the Juden though, who have taken evil to an awesomely different level.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. peterAUS says:

    …The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism….

    Agree.
    And have a hunch that the majority of American citizens don’t mind it either.
    At least as long as it doesn’t affect their own life and limb.

    And, somehow, have the same hunch for the rest of developed countries.
    With new NATO members on top of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @Randal

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans
     
    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th - the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
     
    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual ‘Pact of Steel’ between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia’s technical capital). That’s why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn’t really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin’s vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington’s European presence to the British Isles).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.
     
    Indeed. And to some extent the US inherited some of the advantages Saker sets out from the British Empire, which had used them to leverage its global empire against the military and industrial superiority of Germany (over Britain).
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.
     
    Not anymore. By around 2022-2025 it will be completely over. Competent people in US military know this. I am not talking about nuclear weapons, only conventional.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    It was a tragic event of history, in light of the current crisis, that Stalin’s ambitions got the better of him and that the Germans and Soviets did not remain allies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Does anybody else get tired of the way the Saker waffles on like a chatty old woman, or possibly a gay man? Such a fussy, mawkish tone.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Erebus says:

    A “war” between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

    Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can’t win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn’t lose much should they be attacked.
    Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM’s M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies’ confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia’s superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn’t have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies’ confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.
     
    Bravo! I think the discussion thread after that could be simply closed. Succinct and concise statement of the essence of this huge issue.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Excellent post.
    , @FB

    '...Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly...'
     
    This is the layman's take...as I tried to point out on the 800 lb Gorilla thread...

    '...Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset...'
     
    That is not how a US-Russia conflict in Syria would unfold...

    As I began to explain on the other thread...a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to suppress the Russian air defenses there...

    Ie a SEAD operation...

    A massive TLAM salvo at Hmeimim would achieve nothing...

    Russian SAMs [numbering in the dozens of launchers and radars are already dispersed...and could not be targeted by TLAMs which have no such capability...]

    Russian aircraft there would be in the skies defending the airspace and shooting down TLAMs not sitting on the airfield...so would not be hit by a TLAM salvo...

    What is the result...?

    Russian SAMs are are all still there an able to shoot down any airspace intruders...

    No Russian aircraft lost...and can operate from any number of airfields in the area...or even from Russian bases...

    A TLAM salvo...no matter how massive... would achieve nothing...anyone who knows anything about air combat knows this...

    But again...it is ridiculous to contemplate a TLAM salvo...as the US would never contemplate such a ridiculous and doomed-to-fail scenario...

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop...but nobody seems interested...

    Now on this thread...the discussion was supposed to be about Russian advances in crucial technologies like the scramjet engine [supersonic combusting ramjet]...which powers the new Zircon missile...and which technology the US lags far behind...

    Yet the discussion has inevitably turned into armchair general nonsense...

    Go get yourselves a copy of CMANO...and have at it...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command%3A_Modern_Air_Naval_Operations
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    I don’t follow your argument; if the Russian force in Syria is too small to win, who is going to inflict the defeat on US forces that would be devastating to US imperial credibility?
    , @FB
    And just to finish my train of thought with regard to your persistent nonsense about the US attacking Russia in Syria with cruise missiles...

    As many here...and elsewhere...have pointed out...the US navy is a tool designed for colonial enforcement against poor, weak countries...

    The TLAMs and ALCMs are the weapon of choice for terrorizing civilian infrastructure...

    I have been to Belgrade and have seen this up close...

    Targeting civilian infrastructure has been a US strategy since at least WW2 with the terror bombing of Germany...Japan...and of course the nukes...

    We have seen this in every US war of aggression since then...Korea [five million dead]...Vietnam [10 million]...Serbia...Iraq [twice]...Libya...Syria...etc.

    The pattern is always the same...

    Targeting civilians to inflict pain is not new in the history of warfare...but rarely has it been relied on so exclusively as we have seen with the US in the past century...

    As I explained in my previous comment...those same cruise missiles are useless against an A2/AD zone...

    Not only that...but a country like Russia has the weapons [Tu22 as I explained already] expressly designed to send any US warship that is stupid enough to launch TLAMs at it... to the bottom...and quickly...

    That would be the instant response...not targeting other US assets with Kalibrs...

    The fantastic notion of US launching a massive TLAM salvo against Russian forces in Syria...and then a Russian response with its own standoff weapons is complete amateur hour...not even the programmers of CMANO are that stupid...

    As for mounting a SEAD operation against Russia in Syria...that is unrealistic...the US has no bullets for that...it has done nothing to come up with a solution to modern, mobile Russian air defenses...

    If the US weapons procurement system were not so corrupt...they would have worked tirelessly on that ever since Kosovo 1999...as experts have urged...

    But they have done nothing except increasing the already massive pork to insiders...
    , @Anon
    You forgot about the willing patsies.
    Poland is ready to enter the "Ukrainian club:"
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-totalitarian-europe-now-on-our-doorstep/5617176
    "Poland now faces a further crises of post World War Two occupation. Once again by the West. The first Western incursion was set in motion by the selling-off of key industries to outside corporate interests – and what I call the Coca Colarisation’ of the country by US interests. However that slides into the background when compared to the current crisis facing the country. Poles stand on the very brink of being forced to give up their sovereignty. In doing so they will become pawns to the forces of a global New World Order. A regime whose new HQ will be located in Europe, and make strategic use of Poland – and Romania – as its ‘war theatre’. While the US, UK, Germany and France pull-back to avoid being caught up in the front lines of this, their very own belligerent, geopolitically motivated incitement to war."

    More from the same article: "The key ingredient of this strategy is the establishment of an ‘EU Treasury’ which, according to Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, will come into effect in June 2018, under the official title: European Monetary Fund. This will result in the single point control of all EU member state finances. The plan will involve a further leveraging of the power of the major banks, to consolidate their controlling influence over EU affairs. By combining an ‘EU Treasury’ and a consolidation of banking power, a major step will be taken in the ‘amalgamation of everything’ heist; to be brought under the single umbrella of a Totalitarian Super State. We are talking about individual country’s monetary policies; the military; police forces and intelligence services all being run from a central control unit in Brussels. These will be followed by more of the same – covering almost all areas of administrative control, that were once the domain of individual countries.
    The institution at the forefront of this power grab is the Bank of International Settlements, based in Basle, Switzerland, which has global outreach and acts as a funnel for the acquisition and distribution of vast sums of globally fluid international money. The Bank of International Settlements is under the control of approximately eight thousand hedge fund managers with a common ambition to rule the world."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @thomasgregory
    The coming collapse of the petrodollar does not bode well for the US economy in general or the US military in specific. Let's check back in a few years when gold is $5000 an ounce and one BTC costs 20K.

    Absolutely right thomas: should the US lose its reserve currency status & should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.
     
    Spend any time at all in the DC region, around the Pentagon, the NSA, the various members of the multi-partnered, Alphabet Soup of Military/Intel Depravity, you'll understand that THEY will be enriched before anyone else even if it means the rest of the country starves to death. These are the people that kill people after all, the folks that do the snooping, who daily are building DARPA files on everyone involved for blackmail purposes. These days, there's no one to stand in the way of the MIC getting theirs and more, every single year. And it all flies in the face of the logic laid out by the folks right here. We're composed in the wrong way to fight the wars they envision. And so the only solution for me is to assume corruption because the way things are composed NOW is too profitable to give up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Disagree with most of the article.
    No desire whatsoever to regurgitate why; debated several times so far in some other threads.

    BTW, good posts Randal, IMHO.

    Good luck.

    Cheers, Peter.

    As you say, old ground. But hopefully that means opinions are being refined to take into account valid points made by the other side :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Randal says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual 'Pact of Steel' between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia's technical capital). That's why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn't really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin's vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington's European presence to the British Isles).

    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    Indeed. And to some extent the US inherited some of the advantages Saker sets out from the British Empire, which had used them to leverage its global empire against the military and industrial superiority of Germany (over Britain).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Randal says:
    @Priss Factor
    It doesn't matter.

    US has more depth.

    It's like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn't all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    This is why Globalists are pushing all this anti-Russian hysteria. If Americans are made to think Russia is the enemy, then IF war breaks out between the US and Russia, Americans will be totally for a War Economy.

    US has resources 20x that of Russia.

    So, Russia must be defensive and avoid war with US at any cost.

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    That’s seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world’s workshop?

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?
     
    1. Navies are extremely complex and irreplaceable in the modern warfare--once the hard kill was obtained, there is no way to replace the loss within the time framework of hypothetical conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Loss of a single CVN and its CBG may have catastrophic consequences for political leadership and may, in fact, create enormous pressures for nuclear retaliation.

    2. Cruise missiles are easier to replace, especially for Russia in conventional conflict say with US since most facilities of NPO Raduga (part of Concern Tactical Missile Systems) is in and around Moscow and the means an immense Air Defense System. Yet, the first salvo and head-on one (otvetno-vstrechnyi udar) matter a great deal.

    3. Once the first phase, both in the sea and in the land concludes, on the sea it is a First Operation, on the land--a stand off phase, things eventually will come back (if there will be resources and will to continue) to a classic combined arms warfare which on the land will involve a fall back to stocks of older equipment, such as tanks, self-propelled artillery, not-SMART munitions and it is here where quantity would matter a great deal. In other words--legacy systems and mobilization factor could become (together with materiel) a decisive factor. I, however, don't think that it will come down to this.

    With hyper sonic missiles coming on-line in several years, for US this becomes a paradigm-shifting moment, because without Navy I see not much conventional threat really from US ground forces.

    , @peterAUS

    after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?
     
    The crux of the issue, IMHO.

    We did chat a bit about this re Iran (and NK) option, not quite China, though.

    Taking into account that with Keynesian militarism, well, I believe that's the core of US elites thinking.
    , @renfro
    The US no longer has the industrial base to produce the necessary war material.
    It has been almost entirely wiped out since GATT in 1966.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped (quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively) than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies.

    The US had numbers, but the US was not qualitatively superior to the Germans in WW2. The Sherman tank, as just one example, was a track laying coffin against the run of the mill German Panzer. The P-51D had the advantage of numbers and range, but the Germans were fighting in their own skies and both the Bf-109 and FW-190 were the equal of the Mustang. The US had an advantage of a large rear area to train a bunch of pilots and the German pilot was required to fly until he died, and the shear numbers finally overwhelmed them.

    Such things is what led Stalin to say that quantity has its own quality.

    After WWII the US was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the US enjoyed a situation close to quasi total monopoly.

    British Industry was not blown to smithereens either. Same with Canadian Industry. Both did quite well after the war.

    And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA,

    You didn’t keep up. The Soviets predicated much of their planning on initiating nuclear war. The Stavka firmly believed that nuke war could be won.

    Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate executing the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria has achieved.

    In their deteriorated state, the US Air Forces would have serious problems maintaining any sort of reasonable sortie rate. The fact that not much is being asked of the Russian units in Syria really doesn’t give much to work with when it comes to an argument of this sort.

    but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They. therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes.

    Hegelian dialectics are not needed to avoid static thinking. Hegelian philosophy is simply one way of think of things. It’s truly buffoonish to think it requires Hegelian dialectics. Hegelian dialectics is one of the factors that sunk the Soviet Union.

    Paul Craig Roberts will remain a lone voice crying in the desert.

    Perhaps Roberts is right about some things. He’s been far to shrill and silly and it has affected his credibility, so few people listen to him. Is the curse of a man that he can’t discipline himself and so husband his credibility so people will listen to him when it really counts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Good post, IMHO.
    , @MEFOBILLS
    Roberts isn't shrill when he discusses near nuclear misses from the past. It was humans who decided to not launch nuclear weapons, despite false signaling and bad communications.

    Roberts is on the mark when it comes to now short warning times due to Nato encroachment. Also, by Western elites fomenting distrust, Russian's are likely to think the U.S. DID launch. Hence the important human element has been subverted by the shrill warmongering from the West.

    Roberts is exactly right, the West is acting in an insane stupid way, which puts the world at risk.
    , @AndrewR
    The UK had food rationing until 1954. You are appallingly shameless to imply that the UK didn't end up much worse off than the US after the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Erebus
    A "war" between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

    Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can't win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn't lose much should they be attacked.
    Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM's M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies' confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia's superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn't have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

    Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies’ confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    Bravo! I think the discussion thread after that could be simply closed. Succinct and concise statement of the essence of this huge issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. There is so much to criticize in this article.

    as for the Germans, they had to produce under a relentless bombing campaign

    Yes. And who was conducting that bombing campaign and built all those bombers? It wasn’t the Red Army. That bombing campaign also forced the Germans to divert 88-mm tubes to air-defense, taking a lot of pressure off the Red Army on the Eastern Front.

    Strategy, operational skill, geography and contemporary factors are as important to calculating superiority as weapons quality and training. Giving those factors short shrift makes your argument petty and less relevant.

    (even the Soviets connected the dots and withdrew from Afghanistan faster than the Americans!).

    The Soviets lost 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan while killing as many as 2 million Afghans. And then the Soviet Union collapsed. The American “capitalist” system didn’t collapse after Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Why no mention of that?

    Instead, you want to say this:

    There is one more thing. Not to further dwell on my thesis that Americans are not educated enough to understand basic Marxist theory, but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics.

    But some do. And those that do might be asking themselves what the hell this has to do with anything. Your explanation, which is pure opinion as you so kindly pointed out in your second paragraph, doesn’t cut it. Feelings are not facts.

    As Priss Factor pointed out, it doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    • Troll: FB
    • Replies: @Lurker

    That bombing campaign also forced the Germans to divert 88-mm tubes to air-defense, taking a lot of pressure off the Red Army on the Eastern Front.
     
    Indeed, I only found out quite recently how important that may have been.

    Apparently @10,000 88mm guns were deployed as AAA in Germany 1944-45. Thats such a large figure that I think that were those guns deployed as AT guns it would not only have put pressure on the Red Army it might well have been enough to destroy every Soviet tank. Given that there were also thousands of other German AT guns and tanks in use as well.
    , @Sad Sack
    There may be another trail of logic...and speculation to follow. This is implied by authors reference to the lack of Marxist et al, understanding in the USofA. Hiding in plain sight within almost every aspect of modern American politics and culture is Marxism and the ongoing undermining of what was American. Given this seemingly hidden, but in your face, threat becoming completely successful....the ability of America to continue it's Foreign pursuits is compromised...in the very near term. Also implied...is a very real Soviet style threat to the rest of the world post transformation...from a USSA. Perhaps usefully named....THE North American Union.

    Marxism spread mass poverty and death...all around...in its' efforts to "be fair". Thus unfunding the massive Golden Goose that has been free market capitalism.

    There is much hidden in capability and technology that WILL change the entire discussion. Also, implied early in the Authors screed.

    Extrapolate on the promise of Tesla's discovery's and how he made them...HOW he made them. Most of which is not evident in the modern landscape...though it all based upon some of his inventions and discovery's. Extrapolate on the progress of the limited number of Nation's in developing Tesla's limited dissemination of his technology to them...many years ago. Extrapolate on what Hitler and his inner circle were really involved with in extracting further high technology from seeming nowhere. Extrapolate on the USofA involvement in development of a vast number of esoteric technologies and capabilities. The evidence is in your face, all over the world....and online. It has been used and denied ad infinitum.

    Perhaps it's very first use as a massive "Fire Power Demonstration"....was in New York City and in Washington D.C....on 9/11.

    The current Media Propaganda industry is a massive employment of such tech...via "Idiot Boxes"..TV....and long since via other and many means. The somnolence and ignorance of the masses is purposeful...and sadly, they are thus easily directed and influenced.

    What the Author Posits and all other arguments presented, though cogent and on point...Only takes into consideration what is known since WW-II.

    All else is hidden....esoteric. But, nonetheless....very Real.
    , @Noah Way

    The American “capitalist” system didn’t collapse after Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Why no mention of that?
     
    The Soviet Union didn't collapse because of Afghanistan, it fell to indirect economic attrition - they went bankrupt trying to compete in the arms race. The difference is that the US uses the military is a profit vehicle, a well-made point that you clearly ignore.

    What few have seemed to notice (but that is becoming more clearly evident daily) is that the US also bankrupted itself and continues to do so by pouring trillions into military systems and misadventures for profit while neglecting its own population that continues to decline both economically and socially.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Lemurmaniac
    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual 'Pact of Steel' between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia's technical capital). That's why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn't really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin's vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington's European presence to the British Isles).

    because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    Not anymore. By around 2022-2025 it will be completely over. Competent people in US military know this. I am not talking about nuclear weapons, only conventional.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo

    By around 2022-2025 it will be completely over. Competent people in US military know this. I am not talking about nuclear weapons, only conventional.
     
    For this precise reason, US will throw the first punch before that date, if it fails to convince the putative "resistance"'s elite to accept their designated roles in the neo-feudal system.

    There are various clocks that were wound and set to tick by the actual owners of US Inc., most importantly the massive capital and technology transfer to Communist China by these same stakeholders. The bet was and remains that in the course of integration into the "world order", at the time of relative parity, the Chinese Communist party would lose its hold over its people. The bet by Chinese communists was and remains that they would be able to maintain their hold on power and at the time of parity, they would implement the 4th and final goal set by Mao for Communist China.

    All of which means that there will be war with capital W in the very near future, if one is to believe the surface theatrics. I expect 2018 will be quite hot.

    And as an aside, Andrei, my sense of the mindset of the war party in America is that, based on encounters between US and Soviet Union, they believe that you Russians do not have the fire in the belly (or the psychological pathology, if you prefer) to go the ultimate limit, which is nuclear war. They do, however, take the Chinese very seriously in this regard.

    Btw, Randal's first 2 posts were imo quite accurate.

    And @Saker, reading your pathetic propaganda makes my skin crawl. The same feeling I get when I read MSM. Give it a rest buddy. It won't work. The same soft American heads that get turned by your type of output can be trivially turned back when the time comes. Seriously dude, after decades of unrelenting mass manipulation of the Americans they have their number. (And didn't we see this just recently with young progressives and the Russia hysteria? Yes, we did.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Randal

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.
     

    That's seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world's workshop?

    If and when there were a "limited war" with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    1. Navies are extremely complex and irreplaceable in the modern warfare–once the hard kill was obtained, there is no way to replace the loss within the time framework of hypothetical conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Loss of a single CVN and its CBG may have catastrophic consequences for political leadership and may, in fact, create enormous pressures for nuclear retaliation.

    2. Cruise missiles are easier to replace, especially for Russia in conventional conflict say with US since most facilities of NPO Raduga (part of Concern Tactical Missile Systems) is in and around Moscow and the means an immense Air Defense System. Yet, the first salvo and head-on one (otvetno-vstrechnyi udar) matter a great deal.

    3. Once the first phase, both in the sea and in the land concludes, on the sea it is a First Operation, on the land–a stand off phase, things eventually will come back (if there will be resources and will to continue) to a classic combined arms warfare which on the land will involve a fall back to stocks of older equipment, such as tanks, self-propelled artillery, not-SMART munitions and it is here where quantity would matter a great deal. In other words–legacy systems and mobilization factor could become (together with materiel) a decisive factor. I, however, don’t think that it will come down to this.

    With hyper sonic missiles coming on-line in several years, for US this becomes a paradigm-shifting moment, because without Navy I see not much conventional threat really from US ground forces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bb.
    Not completely OT but, what do you make of the ''harvesting of russian tissue''(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/us-air-force-admits-harvesting-russian-tissue) and the potential of bio warfare becoming a thing? genetics is advancing considerably. a designer flu could considerably cripple productivity. It may not work in the long run but could supplement first strike capabilities.
    , @Ron Unz
    As a non-military expert, one thing that strikes me is the near-perfect fit between the existing strengths of Russia and China, which are currently in a loose quasi-alliance against the general bullying of The American Empire.

    Obviously, Russia has vast natural resources, including energy, while China has the world's largest industrial base, which requires such resources and energy supplies. But this ideal meshing also seems particularly strong in military matters.

    Based on this article and a few previous ones, it sounds like Russia has achieved considerable superiority to America in various aspects of advanced military technology, much more so than China. But Russia's industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn't hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    However, China's industrial production base is considerably larger than America's, and if it were geared up in producing Russian military-designs (which obviously Russia would be loathe to provide) it would easily beat America in the War of Production.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can't be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. bb. says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?
     
    1. Navies are extremely complex and irreplaceable in the modern warfare--once the hard kill was obtained, there is no way to replace the loss within the time framework of hypothetical conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Loss of a single CVN and its CBG may have catastrophic consequences for political leadership and may, in fact, create enormous pressures for nuclear retaliation.

    2. Cruise missiles are easier to replace, especially for Russia in conventional conflict say with US since most facilities of NPO Raduga (part of Concern Tactical Missile Systems) is in and around Moscow and the means an immense Air Defense System. Yet, the first salvo and head-on one (otvetno-vstrechnyi udar) matter a great deal.

    3. Once the first phase, both in the sea and in the land concludes, on the sea it is a First Operation, on the land--a stand off phase, things eventually will come back (if there will be resources and will to continue) to a classic combined arms warfare which on the land will involve a fall back to stocks of older equipment, such as tanks, self-propelled artillery, not-SMART munitions and it is here where quantity would matter a great deal. In other words--legacy systems and mobilization factor could become (together with materiel) a decisive factor. I, however, don't think that it will come down to this.

    With hyper sonic missiles coming on-line in several years, for US this becomes a paradigm-shifting moment, because without Navy I see not much conventional threat really from US ground forces.

    Not completely OT but, what do you make of the ”harvesting of russian tissue”(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/us-air-force-admits-harvesting-russian-tissue) and the potential of bio warfare becoming a thing? genetics is advancing considerably. a designer flu could considerably cripple productivity. It may not work in the long run but could supplement first strike capabilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    what do you make of the ”harvesting of russian tissue”
     
    I have to go with Putin's (that is intelligence services') assessment here that it could, probably, be nefarious and biological weapons research related. Having said that--I am a complete dumber with anything connected to biological warfare and am not even pretending to know one way or another. I recall two semesters with of ZOMP (Defense from Weapons of Mass Destruction--in reality it is Porazhenie, a bit different) dedicated specifically to biological and chemical weapons, man I hated it with all my heart. Nukes are more interesting. As per First Strike Capability--anything is possible in this respect and I wouldn't exclude the use of all arsenal, with the exception of nukes, including a "genetics" bio-weapons. Certainly not impossible.
    , @Cyrano
    This is obviously a clever campaign to showcase the advantages of multiculturalism over any racially homogeneous country. For example if someone designed a biological weapon that targets a members of a specific genetic group, but in the meantime that nation was clever enough to get its population genetically diversified – obviously the biological weapon is not going to work.

    It all depends on what is the threshold in terms of percentage points of racial purity below which the biological weapon won’t work. Let’s say US designed a weapon that will target a specific genetic group only if members of that genetic group are over 50% genetically pure.

    But if that nation was prepared for that and via multiculturalism achieved genetic purity of no greater than let’s say 10% dominance of any racial or genetic group in any of the targeted individuals -then the racial weapon won’t work.

    This is only meant to show that multicultural US is superior to racially homogeneous countries thanks to their clever policy of multiculturalism and bio-weapons against them have no chance of success. Of course you have to realize that I am only joking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Priss Factor
    It doesn't matter.

    US has more depth.

    It's like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn't all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    This is why Globalists are pushing all this anti-Russian hysteria. If Americans are made to think Russia is the enemy, then IF war breaks out between the US and Russia, Americans will be totally for a War Economy.

    US has resources 20x that of Russia.

    So, Russia must be defensive and avoid war with US at any cost.

    U.S. power – indeed, all major countries’ power – have been degraded over the past 50 or so years for two reasons.

    First, nuclear deterrence makes any major war somewhat inconceivable. Also, Americans would never stomach the massive losses a major war against Russia or China would entail. We get the vapors over a few thousand men dying over a decade. What happens when tens of thousands of our guys are getting killed over a weekend, over and over and over.

    Wouldn’t happen. I also suspect that Russia and China would have a tough time with that as well.

    Second, smaller countries now have a tried and true blueprint for defeating major powers (except, perhaps, China): Don’t fight like Western countries, fight in the traditional Eastern style. Avoid large, open area, decisive battles. Let them roll into your country. Pull you fighters into the mountains or the jungle or hidden in large cities. Let things settle down, then begin the real war. Harass their troops. Draw them into ambushes. Kill their local puppet leaders. Don’t hurt civilians (except, of course, local puppets) but do force your opponent to kill civilians during battles.

    Always remember, we live here, they don’t. Grind them down and they will leave.

    That plan has worked repeatedly. The only powerful country that has managed to stall that plan is Israel with the Palestinians, but that’s mainly because the Jews, in fact, do live there, or, at least, next door, so it’s worth continuing the fight.

    Eventually, the U.S. will pull out of Afghanistan with very little to show for its effort, defeated by a bunch of goat-herders. We’ll also leave Iraq in God knows what condition.

    Now, if the U.S. had any sense, it’d understand that it is capable to doing some serious damage to the people and their supporters running a country. Basically, we tell some group running a country, “Can we take over and rebuild your country so that it’s a functioning ally of the U.S., probably not. But we can destroy you and your extended family so some other group has a good chance of taking over. Your country will still be a shithole and hate us, but someone else will be running the show. Therefore, you should play ball.”

    That’s not an insignficant amount of power. But this idea that we can come in and rebuild a country is stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Dutch Boy says:

    Nobody would win a nuclear war and I don’t foresee any American deployment of troops to Eastern Europe large enough to overcome the Russian advantage in men and materiel already in place there (weapons superiority aside). Any such war by us there would be foolish to the nth degree, since we have nothing to gain and much to lose (possibly including our existence).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @bb.
    Not completely OT but, what do you make of the ''harvesting of russian tissue''(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/us-air-force-admits-harvesting-russian-tissue) and the potential of bio warfare becoming a thing? genetics is advancing considerably. a designer flu could considerably cripple productivity. It may not work in the long run but could supplement first strike capabilities.

    what do you make of the ”harvesting of russian tissue”

    I have to go with Putin’s (that is intelligence services’) assessment here that it could, probably, be nefarious and biological weapons research related. Having said that–I am a complete dumber with anything connected to biological warfare and am not even pretending to know one way or another. I recall two semesters with of ZOMP (Defense from Weapons of Mass Destruction–in reality it is Porazhenie, a bit different) dedicated specifically to biological and chemical weapons, man I hated it with all my heart. Nukes are more interesting. As per First Strike Capability–anything is possible in this respect and I wouldn’t exclude the use of all arsenal, with the exception of nukes, including a “genetics” bio-weapons. Certainly not impossible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?
     
    1. Navies are extremely complex and irreplaceable in the modern warfare--once the hard kill was obtained, there is no way to replace the loss within the time framework of hypothetical conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Loss of a single CVN and its CBG may have catastrophic consequences for political leadership and may, in fact, create enormous pressures for nuclear retaliation.

    2. Cruise missiles are easier to replace, especially for Russia in conventional conflict say with US since most facilities of NPO Raduga (part of Concern Tactical Missile Systems) is in and around Moscow and the means an immense Air Defense System. Yet, the first salvo and head-on one (otvetno-vstrechnyi udar) matter a great deal.

    3. Once the first phase, both in the sea and in the land concludes, on the sea it is a First Operation, on the land--a stand off phase, things eventually will come back (if there will be resources and will to continue) to a classic combined arms warfare which on the land will involve a fall back to stocks of older equipment, such as tanks, self-propelled artillery, not-SMART munitions and it is here where quantity would matter a great deal. In other words--legacy systems and mobilization factor could become (together with materiel) a decisive factor. I, however, don't think that it will come down to this.

    With hyper sonic missiles coming on-line in several years, for US this becomes a paradigm-shifting moment, because without Navy I see not much conventional threat really from US ground forces.

    As a non-military expert, one thing that strikes me is the near-perfect fit between the existing strengths of Russia and China, which are currently in a loose quasi-alliance against the general bullying of The American Empire.

    Obviously, Russia has vast natural resources, including energy, while China has the world’s largest industrial base, which requires such resources and energy supplies. But this ideal meshing also seems particularly strong in military matters.

    Based on this article and a few previous ones, it sounds like Russia has achieved considerable superiority to America in various aspects of advanced military technology, much more so than China. But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    However, China’s industrial production base is considerably larger than America’s, and if it were geared up in producing Russian military-designs (which obviously Russia would be loathe to provide) it would easily beat America in the War of Production.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.
     
    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles--capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China's manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don't see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a "father" of Russia's disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely... right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing--but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?
     
    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia--that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia's domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic--from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs--all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.
    , @renfro
    Russia has a national strategy for who it allies with. All the US has is Israel, which isn't even an ally, its the scorpion on the frogs back.


    2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-03/21/content_548330.htm

    Article 8
    The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
    Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
    Article 9
    When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
    Article 11
    The contracting parties stand for the strict observation of universally acknowledged principles and norms of international laws and oppose any action of resorting to the use of force to bring pressure to bear on others or interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state under all sorts of pretexts and both are ready to make positive efforts to strengthen peace, stability, development and cooperation throughout the world.
    The contracting parties are against any action which may constitute a threat to international stability, security and peace and will conduct mutual co-ordination with regard to the prevention of international conflicts and bringing about their political settlement.
    Article l6
    On the basis of mutual benefit, the contracting parties shall conduct cooperation in such areas as economy and trade, military know-how, science and technology, energy resources, transport, nuclear energy, finance, aerospace and aviation, information technology and other areas of common interest. They shall promote economic and trade cooperation in border areas and local regions between the two countries and create necessary and favorable conditions in this regard in accordance with the laws of each country

    2015
    Russia Signs Military Cooperation Deal with Iran

    2016
    Iran and China sign military cooperation agreement
    , @tumta
    QED.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. The US position is more of a paradox. Its targeting Russia to weaken China to maintain its global hedgemony, but any war would see both countries destroyed leaving China the worlds dominant power.

    The US is much more developed than Russia so has more to loose. It has numerous bases within 1000km of Russia that would be targeted and destroyed, by comparison Russia has vertually none. As someone on here already stated they could hit Russia back directly but then your into MAD territory.

    The most logical choice for the US is to make peace with Russia which its people have alot in common with. Just like ironically far sighted Trump tried to initially do before he was stopped by his arogant stupid party and the democrats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.
     

    That's seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world's workshop?

    If and when there were a "limited war" with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    The crux of the issue, IMHO.

    We did chat a bit about this re Iran (and NK) option, not quite China, though.

    Taking into account that with Keynesian militarism, well, I believe that’s the core of US elites thinking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. peterAUS says:
    @Quartermaster

    The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped (quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively) than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies.
     
    The US had numbers, but the US was not qualitatively superior to the Germans in WW2. The Sherman tank, as just one example, was a track laying coffin against the run of the mill German Panzer. The P-51D had the advantage of numbers and range, but the Germans were fighting in their own skies and both the Bf-109 and FW-190 were the equal of the Mustang. The US had an advantage of a large rear area to train a bunch of pilots and the German pilot was required to fly until he died, and the shear numbers finally overwhelmed them.

    Such things is what led Stalin to say that quantity has its own quality.

    After WWII the US was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the US enjoyed a situation close to quasi total monopoly.
     
    British Industry was not blown to smithereens either. Same with Canadian Industry. Both did quite well after the war.

    And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA,
     
    You didn't keep up. The Soviets predicated much of their planning on initiating nuclear war. The Stavka firmly believed that nuke war could be won.

    Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate executing the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria has achieved.
     
    In their deteriorated state, the US Air Forces would have serious problems maintaining any sort of reasonable sortie rate. The fact that not much is being asked of the Russian units in Syria really doesn't give much to work with when it comes to an argument of this sort.

    but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They. therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes.
     
    Hegelian dialectics are not needed to avoid static thinking. Hegelian philosophy is simply one way of think of things. It's truly buffoonish to think it requires Hegelian dialectics. Hegelian dialectics is one of the factors that sunk the Soviet Union.

    Paul Craig Roberts will remain a lone voice crying in the desert.
     
    Perhaps Roberts is right about some things. He's been far to shrill and silly and it has affected his credibility, so few people listen to him. Is the curse of a man that he can't discipline himself and so husband his credibility so people will listen to him when it really counts.

    Good post, IMHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Ron Unz
    As a non-military expert, one thing that strikes me is the near-perfect fit between the existing strengths of Russia and China, which are currently in a loose quasi-alliance against the general bullying of The American Empire.

    Obviously, Russia has vast natural resources, including energy, while China has the world's largest industrial base, which requires such resources and energy supplies. But this ideal meshing also seems particularly strong in military matters.

    Based on this article and a few previous ones, it sounds like Russia has achieved considerable superiority to America in various aspects of advanced military technology, much more so than China. But Russia's industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn't hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    However, China's industrial production base is considerably larger than America's, and if it were geared up in producing Russian military-designs (which obviously Russia would be loathe to provide) it would easily beat America in the War of Production.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can't be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China’s manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don’t see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a “father” of Russia’s disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely… right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing–but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia–that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia’s domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.
     
    That's absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia's population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia's.

    If Russia can indeed now roughly match America's quantitative military potential while possesses qualitative superiority in many areas, that truly underscores the disastrously total incompetence of America's ruling political, intellectual, and economic elites.
    , @Jim Christian
    I doubt we'd allow those means of Chinese production to exist, that is, their advantage. And correct to say, even for the great industrial powers, lead times in shipbuilding are so great a war would be well over before the steel was rounded up even to lay a keel. But if we got to the point of striking each others' homeland, it would have gone nuclear anyway. Gentlemen, all this is unthinkable. Oh sure, it's "fun" to kick around, but in the end, all unthinkable starting with North Korea and Iran and especially between what today are the great powers. As regards war-fighting, because of the nukes and the mess THEY respresent, the only way to win, is never to play the game. And nukes are a problem for everyone. The Bigs need nukes not to fly, ever.

    Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's TO be done. I suspect we'll continue to harass each other through surrogates and enjoy the fruits of the Cold Wars. It's the surrogate countries that seem to suffer most. Pity them.

    , @Jim Christian

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.
     
    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I've been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.

    That said, that they're wringing the last nickels out of the currently obsolete constitution of our forces knowing they have the next generation in their back pockets already, is rather reprehensible. The Osprey, the F-35, the Gerald Ford, all of them, massive and deadly corruptions, fatally flawed and VERY expensive and really, they offer no explanation, there's no obvious justification for these failures outside of the fact they were moneymakers. And they build these in spite of knowing their obsolescence. But I'm not certain they don't have new toys in the box that will out-fox the toys of other States. The American defense contractor is a sneaky bastard at that..
    , @Erebus

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.
     
    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is "Yes, with Chinese characteristics". In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they'll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35's systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can't be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a "cookbook" understanding of the machine. It's a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he's gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can't be thinking in Chinese. He's gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There's also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to "get it" as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money's worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an "all Russian" program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.


    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I'm pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.
    , @survey-of-disinfo

    I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.
     
    How interesting. Well, it seems the obvious reason from the Chinese military's point of view is (if and) when the Chinese capture Russian military assets in a war with Russia, or should they acquire the same under other scenarios, they can readily use them:

    Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs. (Sun Tzu 2.9)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Randal

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans
     
    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th - the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
     
    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    “Whether the US “won” in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. ”

    Everybody knows the motivation was to eliminate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Iraq no longer possesses WMD’s so the US won! Small caveat. There were never WMD’s so the war was unnecessary. The military industrial complex did make a killing though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Wasn't the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33.  

    The Russian Navy Is Powerful (But Suffers from 2 Big Fatal Flaws)

    But the problem for the Russian Navy is that the vessel’s gas-turbine engines are built by Zorya-Mashproekt in Ukraine—a legacy of the Soviet Union. “The frigate program has run into a mess because of Ukrainian engines,” Kofman said. “They’re looking at substantial delays of probably at least five years.”

    On the positive side, the Russians have learned to maintain and overhaul Ukrainian-made engines onboard their existing ships, Kofman said. However, the solution was to hire as many Ukrainian technicians as possible who were willing to work in Russia. Kofman noted Russia has not yet been able to indigenously produce its own gas turbines to replace those currently installed in its fleet. But Moscow is exploring the purchase of Chinese-built engines (which are “derived” from German engines made by MTU and China similarly benefitted from extensive cooperation with Ukraine in this sphere).

     

    Dr. Tom Fedyszyn on the State of the Russian Navy

    The Russian economy is built on exporting minerals (mostly oil and gas). Below that, it’s arms exports. They export almost as much as we do! But they have such a small economy that their arms sales really matter. So, when you look at Russian military capability, sometimes that’s just a small part of why they deploy. A larger part of why they deploy is to show off what type of technology they have and to try to sell it. You mentioned the Indian Navy. When I was in Moscow, there were more Indian officers there than from any other nation. U.S. was second. Why? Because the Russians, by the default of politics, ended up selling India its navy. Still today, about 70 percent of the Indian Navy is Russian.

    I’ve spoken to lots of Indian Navy officers about this. The sense is that they don’t like the Russian ships, they don’t work too well, they’re suboptimal, but they can afford them. The U.S. has this double-whammy where we’re not that good at selling high technology, and when we sell it, it costs a lot of money. And the Indian budget makes them buy Russian – and they continue to buy Russian. So, should the Russians be able to continue to build the Shtorm, India would be the most likely nation that would buy it.

    But remember, of course, Russia just sold and delivered to them the Vikramaditiya, a ski-jump carrier which was 4 years overdue, 300 percent over budget, and every Indian naval officer I’ve spoken to has said, “Well, it’s not a good ship, but we needed an aircraft carrier and we could afford it, so we got what we got.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.
     
    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles--capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China's manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don't see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a "father" of Russia's disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely... right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing--but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?
     
    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia--that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia's domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic--from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs--all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.

    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.

    If Russia can indeed now roughly match America’s quantitative military potential while possesses qualitative superiority in many areas, that truly underscores the disastrously total incompetence of America’s ruling political, intellectual, and economic elites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.
     
    I would say that static numbers, while obviously important, do not reflect a complete dynamic picture whenever we deal with any military-warfare issue. Here is, for example, how many in US were judging dyadic relations in military sphere:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7IBLaMIGlEg/V0Hwgvhj-3I/AAAAAAAAAb8/Hr2xoyEF67E2H19mx_S10U0ypbPD-8EQgCLcB/s1600/DiadicTechAdvantage.jpg

    This is from Biddle's famous treatise on Military Power. But what is always forgotten--what for is the military power? Russia cares only about own safety, the safety of her borders and immediate geographic vicinity. For that she has more than enough military and industrial capability to meet any single or combination of threats. She also can call the bluff in those areas. In simpler terms, Russia, paradoxically has a greater strategic depth and much shorter and secure lines of communications. Now comes the issue which is not easily quantifiable: even if to assume that US "controls" manufacturing base of Europe. We need to start with two things, even assuming a success of NATO propaganda:

    1. How many Europeans would want to fight and die for the US? NATO? The narrative is not easily controlled today, it stops being effective the moment first Iskanders or X-101s fly in.

    2. US military knows that it cannot "defeat" Russia conventionally in her vicinity--for starters it will have to deal with, even if to assume pure dyadic superiority, with something it never dealt before in its history--huge damage to own C4 centers and with logistics which will be interdicted. As Colonel Douglas Macgregor stated:


    In 110 days of fighting the German army in France during 1918, the U.S. Army Expeditionary Force sustained 318,000 casualties, including 110,000 killed in action. That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.
     
    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/

    What will be the reaction in the US when these 110 000 killed will be, indeed, in roughly 100 days? I don't think Western public in general, and especially US public, has any grasp of what is that nor is it ready for it. Russia WILL mobilize and arm additional 1-1.5 million troops (why and how--separate topic), US will not be able to do so without implosion at home. I don't think so that even in a controlled narrative environment that kind of casualties will be concealed. Those who don't remember, I remember it very clearly, how US did everything in its power to relegate RK-55 Sampson (Granat) TLAMs in 1980s to, initially, storage and then as far away from Victor-III (pr. 671 RTMK) and later Akula-class SSGNs. It all starts there, while Tomahawk received much publicity, very few people wanted to admit that USSR already had a lead in range. Today Russia has an immense advantage in range (10 000 km TLAMs can easily be launched at any US location with carriers not even leaving Russia's airspace) and is closing gap in numbers. So, in this case even the issue of manufacturing base, which US still have larger than that of Russia in terms of some military hardware--nobody denies that--the problem for US is doctrinal. Just some questions:

    1. How one defends CBG against 12 P-800 or 3M54 salvo? How can one defends against 3M22 Zircon 4-8 missile salvo? There are NO answers to that. None, zilch, do not exist in nature and all this laser cats technology etc. is just that-fantasy.

    2. United States tries to develop a PGS (Prompt Global Strike) capabilities--hyper-sonic gliders and all that. Does it have advantage here? No, Russia is ahead in that. In general, hyper-sonic theme is a "Russian" national weapon theme. M=4.3+ X-32 are already deployed and fully operational. Yu-71, meanwhile, is flying already.

    Far from having its manufacturing base shrink, US problem is in concept of warfare and incompetence of people who defined US military views for decades. Again, size of American military budget doesn't matter, as I stated already--for a cost of a single, not yet existing, Columbia-class SSBN, Russians paid for already floating or getting ready state-of-the-art nuclear deterrent of 8 (eight) Borey-class SSBNs. Just think about it:

    US: 1 Columbia-class SSBN= roughly $ 8.5 billion (doesn't exist yet)
    Russia: 8 Borey-class SSBNs= roughly $ 8.5 billion. (3 afloat, 5 getting ready)

    I will abstain from commenting on quality of American weapon systems--some of them are really good, others not so much and a lot of them are expensive junk. So, in real combat capability, Russia gets several times a proverbial bang-for-a-buck and the gap continues to grow. There are currently NO American publicly known "analyst" (hasn't been in decades) who ever predicted anything, or assessed anything correctly when it comes to Russia, with ONE single exception of a brilliant and prolific Norman Polmar, who used to be in a top form whenever talking about Soviet and Russian Navy issues. He is losing this form today. Most American views on warfare are shaped by late Tom Clancy's drivel and in general--detached from reality. As I stated--it is clear and present danger, because there very many people in D.C. who still think that they can go and win in Russia or against Russia. Consequences of this delusion could be catastrophic. Is this a result of incompetence? Absolutely. As one American general stated in 1990s (don't remember who)--the worst thing which could have happened to us was the victory over Saddam, they way it was obtained. My book is dedicated to this issue precisely. Just look at F-35, it is embarrassing that once great combat aircraft nation such as US drove itself to THAT--expensive flying junk, but yes, so "stealthy". Look at two Zumwalt-class DDGs--$ 4.1 billion for a thing which is nothing more than floating 2 155-mm cannons battery (add some TLAMs). It is sheer tactical and operational insanity and fleecing. Smart people, and there are plenty of those in US can see where it is all going. Russian Power Metal stalwarts Aria in 1986 in their Hero of Asphalt album had a super-hit called Rose Street, essentially it is about a glamour prostitute and there is a beautiful line in that song:

    "And she breaks the clock to extend her life".(c)

    I by no means imply that US is a glamour prostitute, but there is no doubt, considering delusion and incompetence, and arrogance of US "elites" that it may (and the probability is, sadly, high) try to "break the clock" to "extend its life". The consequences of that will be catastrophic for all. Here is my verbose and hopefully to the point answer to your question.

    , @Yeah
    But there is another way to look at it - meaning the possibility of Russian military superiority. Here is my reasoning: For all its woes and warts, the USSR was in fact a science and technology powerhouse. The first man in space; nuclear capability not much after America; heavy artillery, tanks, other military hardware; world class theoretical physics; good military jets; etc. The scientific and engineering knowledge did not just dissipate when the USSR dissolved. True, it went into a limbo for want of funds, but once a people have acquired high level skills, the skills can quickly be serviced and freshened up once circumstances are right. Putin came at the right time for Russia. Another fifteen years of someone like Yeltsin, and perhaps the technological knowledge might have literally gone to grave. So it is well within the realm of possibilities for Russian military technology to be excellent. Is it better than American? I am no expert, but would find that hard to believe, but can easily believe that what the Russians have is pretty good. It also follows - if this line of reasoning is correct - that Russia's military strength does not really prove American leadership's incompetence. Russian military excellence, or at least adequate competence, was a pre-existing condition, going back to early Soviet times. Therefore, American leadership could be off the hook on this specific charge. General incompetence and stupidity is another matter, though!
    , @Carlton Meyer
    The biggest problem in the US is that many new technologies are ignored because they would upset the traditional funding allocations expected for certain areas for the big contractors. Mounting anti-tank and anti-ship warheads on simple $200 UAVs from Walmart are game changers. The best example are video guided missiles that have revolutionized warfare, but the USA has none! Israel took the lead with its "Spike" systems, and others have appeared since the technology is available at Radio Shack. South Korea has a system whose missiles are unjamable, cheap , and can easily destroy anything in range to include the latest American $20 million mighty M-1 tank.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUxjGxIfzU
    , @CanSpeccy


    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.
     
    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.
     
    But as noted above, the best education in STEM fields in the US is very expensive, e.g., 68,000 a year for an undergraduate at Caltech not including board and lodging. And Grad school costs at least as much, around $85,000 per year not counting pocket money. So a PhD from a top US engineering school costs around a million bucks. In other words, the best education in the US in a STEM field is available on to a tiny fraction of the population. So if you consider the population from which the top defense scientists and engineers are drawn, Russia may, in fact, have a vastly greater pool of talent that the US. As for China .....

    It looks as though the US, under a system of plutocratic control, will fail in the drive for hegemony in a world where raw talent without regard for wealth is more highly valued by competing powers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. peterAUS says:

    Nice thread.

    Some things just made sense around here. And in a, say, wider area, as well.

    One could call it a moment of clarity.

    In a word…excellent……really.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Ron Unz

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.
     
    That's absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia's population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia's.

    If Russia can indeed now roughly match America's quantitative military potential while possesses qualitative superiority in many areas, that truly underscores the disastrously total incompetence of America's ruling political, intellectual, and economic elites.

    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.

    I would say that static numbers, while obviously important, do not reflect a complete dynamic picture whenever we deal with any military-warfare issue. Here is, for example, how many in US were judging dyadic relations in military sphere:

    This is from Biddle’s famous treatise on Military Power. But what is always forgotten–what for is the military power? Russia cares only about own safety, the safety of her borders and immediate geographic vicinity. For that she has more than enough military and industrial capability to meet any single or combination of threats. She also can call the bluff in those areas. In simpler terms, Russia, paradoxically has a greater strategic depth and much shorter and secure lines of communications. Now comes the issue which is not easily quantifiable: even if to assume that US “controls” manufacturing base of Europe. We need to start with two things, even assuming a success of NATO propaganda:

    1. How many Europeans would want to fight and die for the US? NATO? The narrative is not easily controlled today, it stops being effective the moment first Iskanders or X-101s fly in.

    2. US military knows that it cannot “defeat” Russia conventionally in her vicinity–for starters it will have to deal with, even if to assume pure dyadic superiority, with something it never dealt before in its history–huge damage to own C4 centers and with logistics which will be interdicted. As Colonel Douglas Macgregor stated:

    In 110 days of fighting the German army in France during 1918, the U.S. Army Expeditionary Force sustained 318,000 casualties, including 110,000 killed in action. That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.

    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/

    What will be the reaction in the US when these 110 000 killed will be, indeed, in roughly 100 days? I don’t think Western public in general, and especially US public, has any grasp of what is that nor is it ready for it. Russia WILL mobilize and arm additional 1-1.5 million troops (why and how–separate topic), US will not be able to do so without implosion at home. I don’t think so that even in a controlled narrative environment that kind of casualties will be concealed. Those who don’t remember, I remember it very clearly, how US did everything in its power to relegate RK-55 Sampson (Granat) TLAMs in 1980s to, initially, storage and then as far away from Victor-III (pr. 671 RTMK) and later Akula-class SSGNs. It all starts there, while Tomahawk received much publicity, very few people wanted to admit that USSR already had a lead in range. Today Russia has an immense advantage in range (10 000 km TLAMs can easily be launched at any US location with carriers not even leaving Russia’s airspace) and is closing gap in numbers. So, in this case even the issue of manufacturing base, which US still have larger than that of Russia in terms of some military hardware–nobody denies that–the problem for US is doctrinal. Just some questions:

    1. How one defends CBG against 12 P-800 or 3M54 salvo? How can one defends against 3M22 Zircon 4-8 missile salvo? There are NO answers to that. None, zilch, do not exist in nature and all this laser cats technology etc. is just that-fantasy.

    2. United States tries to develop a PGS (Prompt Global Strike) capabilities–hyper-sonic gliders and all that. Does it have advantage here? No, Russia is ahead in that. In general, hyper-sonic theme is a “Russian” national weapon theme. M=4.3+ X-32 are already deployed and fully operational. Yu-71, meanwhile, is flying already.

    Far from having its manufacturing base shrink, US problem is in concept of warfare and incompetence of people who defined US military views for decades. Again, size of American military budget doesn’t matter, as I stated already–for a cost of a single, not yet existing, Columbia-class SSBN, Russians paid for already floating or getting ready state-of-the-art nuclear deterrent of 8 (eight) Borey-class SSBNs. Just think about it:

    US: 1 Columbia-class SSBN= roughly $ 8.5 billion (doesn’t exist yet)
    Russia: 8 Borey-class SSBNs= roughly $ 8.5 billion. (3 afloat, 5 getting ready)

    I will abstain from commenting on quality of American weapon systems–some of them are really good, others not so much and a lot of them are expensive junk. So, in real combat capability, Russia gets several times a proverbial bang-for-a-buck and the gap continues to grow. There are currently NO American publicly known “analyst” (hasn’t been in decades) who ever predicted anything, or assessed anything correctly when it comes to Russia, with ONE single exception of a brilliant and prolific Norman Polmar, who used to be in a top form whenever talking about Soviet and Russian Navy issues. He is losing this form today. Most American views on warfare are shaped by late Tom Clancy’s drivel and in general–detached from reality. As I stated–it is clear and present danger, because there very many people in D.C. who still think that they can go and win in Russia or against Russia. Consequences of this delusion could be catastrophic. Is this a result of incompetence? Absolutely. As one American general stated in 1990s (don’t remember who)–the worst thing which could have happened to us was the victory over Saddam, they way it was obtained. My book is dedicated to this issue precisely. Just look at F-35, it is embarrassing that once great combat aircraft nation such as US drove itself to THAT–expensive flying junk, but yes, so “stealthy”. Look at two Zumwalt-class DDGs–$ 4.1 billion for a thing which is nothing more than floating 2 155-mm cannons battery (add some TLAMs). It is sheer tactical and operational insanity and fleecing. Smart people, and there are plenty of those in US can see where it is all going. Russian Power Metal stalwarts Aria in 1986 in their Hero of Asphalt album had a super-hit called Rose Street, essentially it is about a glamour prostitute and there is a beautiful line in that song:

    “And she breaks the clock to extend her life”.(c)

    I by no means imply that US is a glamour prostitute, but there is no doubt, considering delusion and incompetence, and arrogance of US “elites” that it may (and the probability is, sadly, high) try to “break the clock” to “extend its life”. The consequences of that will be catastrophic for all. Here is my verbose and hopefully to the point answer to your question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. FB says:

    Well…the original comments by Paul Craig Roberts were specific to Russian technical advances…

    Specifically the scramjet engine technology on the Zirkon missile…and the maneuvering-glide re-entry vehicle on the Sarmat ICBM…

    Now the author of this article has taken several thousand words to make the issue more muddy instead of clear…and has deflected a question of technology into one of war-fighting ability and even politics…

    Let’s first get our bearings…

    Major breakthroughs in technology have shaped the course of history…

    Let’s go back to medieval times and look at a simple device that had such an impact…the humble stirrup

    Throughout history mounted warfare meant a soldier sitting on a horse’s back with no way to keep his own legs attached his mount…for any equestrians here, try riding without stirrups sometime and see how you feel…not much better than bareback…

    ‘…The introduction of the stirrup not only made the mounted warrior supreme in medieval warfare, but may have initiated complex and far-reaching social and cultural changes in Europe…’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#Great_Stirrup_Controversy

    The fact that it took human civilization thousands of years to come up with the stirrup tells us that real technology change does not always move quickly…

    Let’s fast forward to the closing days of WW2…

    We all know that the jet engine was a game-changer in military technology…

    The jet engine aircraft was first fielded by the Germans… the Messerschmitt Me262…followed closely by the British…but both the US and Russia quickly caught up within the space of a couple of years…

    After more than 70 years the jet engine is still a vital military technology…

    We note here that for all of China’s technical progress in recent years…it is still not able to produce a domestic jet engine on a par with Russia or even the US…

    This is a serious hindrance to air combat capability…

    For all the amateur talk in the popular press about stealth and electronics…the real beef in aircraft comes down to two things…engine performance…and aerodynamic performance…and in that order

    Now I don’t want to dwell on the jet engine too long here because I want to move on to the scramjet engine…which is going to be a much bigger gamechanger than the jet engine itself…

    But I will provide a link here to a true expert opinion on jet aircraft…a legendary USAF test pilot and one of the most influential thinkers on combat aircraft design…Col. Everest E. Riccione…[here's a link to his obit...]

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-people-and-ideas/2015/member-of-fighter-mafia-passes.html

    Now we all know that the F35 has a lot of doubters [for very good reasons] but the F22 ‘Raptor’ is universally hailed as some kind of undisputed champion of the air…

    For those interested enough to read what a man who had a lot to do with the design of the F15, F16 and F18 has to say about the F22…then this 23 page document is an easy and enjoyable read…

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    In essence…air combat is about the unbending laws of physics…and if you can’t make aircraft that can hold a piece of sky you want to protect then you will lose…it’s as simple as that…

    So what does this have to do with the Zirkon missile…?

    In one word…it’s the engine…a scramjet engine to be precise…

    Now most people have no idea what this is and why it is such a breakthrough…in a word it is speed

    The same way that the jet engine made piston engines and propellers obsolete because they could fly circles around them…the scramjet engine will give us aircraft that no jet aircraft can keep up with…

    A quick attempt at explaining engine technology…the simplest jet engine is a balloon you blow up and then release…and watch it zip around the room…

    The reason it does that is the air you blew into it…every type of heat engine needs compressed air…whether piston or jet…

    That is because only pressure energy can be converted to work energy…adding heat by burning fuel only lets us do more with the pressure energy our engine is designed to produce in the first place…either by a piston moving up and compressing the air in a cylinder…or a row of rotating compressor blades on a jet engine…

    Ie… just burning fuel without compression will not produce any mechanical motion…

    A jet engine is a very simple device that uses a set of rotating blades at the front of the engine to compress incoming air…

    That compressed air is then fed into a combustion chamber, where fuel is added and burned continuously

    That hot, compressed air then flows into another set of rotating blades, using its heat and pressure energy to turn that turbine wheel…which in turn is attached by a solid shaft to the compressor at the front…

    The excess energy coming out of the turbine is squeezed through a nozzle, which speeds up the exhaust flow and creates thrust…[we get excess energy because we also put in fuel energy which lets us do the work of driving the compressor...and still have some left over...]

    This type of engine can make tremendous power for its weight and size…orders of magnitude more than any other kind of air-breathing engine…

    Now…when you get to a very high speed…say about twice the speed of sound [Mach 2]…you can actually throw all of that machinery away and just run what is sometimes called a ‘stovepipe’ or ramjet engine…

    Here there is no need for a compressor because the aircraft is moving so fast through the air that the air rammed into the engine inlet is already compressed…and since you don’t need a turbine wheel to drive the compressor wheel…you need no moving parts at all…

    Ramjet engines are used in missiles but not aircraft because they can’t make any thrust while they are standing still…[no ram effect obviously...]

    So a rocket motor is used to launch the missile to get it up to speed…then the spent rocket motor drops off and the ramjet engine takes over…

    This type of engine is good to about M5 [five times the speed of sound]…but then it hits its physical limits…

    Those limits can be overcome only if the airflow through that engine is not slowed down to subsonic speed as it is in a ramjet…but allowed to continue to move through the engine itself at supersonic speed…

    The big hurdle in all this is how to get fuel to burn in the very short time that this fast-moving air spends inside that engine…

    [like the ramjet the scramjet engine is basically a tube with a very specific interior shape for reasons of physics that I will not get into here...it has no moving parts...]

    The scramjet engine can go very fast…the Zirkon has reportedly been successfully flown at M8…

    However…just like the ramjet…the scramjet engine can’t make any thrust while standing still, or even at low speeds…

    So the big challenge that is still on the horizon is to find a way to integrate a conventional jet engine with a scramjet…in order to go from takeoff to orbital speed in a single vehicle…

    In other words a space plane that can circle the earth in about an hour and a half…

    Clearly this will be a game-changing technology…anyone who gets a jump on this…well…the other guy might as well give up…

    The Zirkon has apparently mastered the scramjet part…but it still needs to be launched by a rocket motor…

    Ie…the part about making it an aircraft that can take off under its own power has not yet been accomplished…

    However the US is far behind in its own scramjet technology…this is not surprising if we review the history of this technology…

    ‘…The first successful flight test of a Scramjet was performed by the Soviet Union in 1991…’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Before_2000

    Then…after the collapse of the Soviet Union…the Russians were willing to share this new technology with the West…

    ‘…Then from 1992 to 1998 an additional 6 flight tests of the axisymmetric high-speed scramjet-demonstrator were conducted by CIAM together with France and then with NASA, USA…’

    A 1998 Nasa technical report outlines those flight tests…

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88580main_H-2243.pdf

    This was in effect a technology transfer to the US from Russia…and allowed the US side to quickly get in the game…

    However…what we have seen since then is very slow progress in the West…the US has had some experimental flights…but their technology is far from being production ready…

    Now for many technical observers in the field this is kind of puzzling…but at the same time…not really…

    There is one simple fact underpinning any nation’s technical capability…and that is its educational and scientific infrastructure…

    It should not be surprising that the Russians are winning the technology race at this point in time…in the 1980s there was a famous quip in the technical community that Russia graduated 10 times as many engineers as the US…but the US graduated 10 times as many lawyers…

    Anyone in the technical and aerospace field who has been to Russia…and to places like Zhukovsky and the adjacent Gromov Flight Test Center…and also has first-hand esperience with Nasa’s infrastructure is always very surprised…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TsAGI

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gromov_Flight_Research_Institute

    But we really shouldn’t be surprised…

    These kinds of intellectual infrastructure don’t just spring up all by themselves…the magic of the ‘invisible hand’ of the market is quite useless in this type of endeavor…

    In the US…the govt has of course been responsible for developing Nasa and that intellectual infrastructure…But the commitment over the years has been erratic and inconsistent…

    Even now you have clowns like Elon Musk who are convincing people that ‘private’ enterprise will beat the govt in space technology…but how many people has Elon Musk sent into space…?

    [Of course Musk doesn't mind getting huge sums of money from the govt...which is buying into his song and dance...]

    The other factor is cultural…young people in the US aren’t interested in mathematics or phsyics…it’s just too hard…you actually have to work that brain…

    They would all rather be tv stars…or singers…or at least contestants on some talent show…

    Engineers and scientists aren’t valued in the US system…that’s the bottom line…

    These vital professions are forced to mediocrity by a system where the scramble for quick profit takes precedence over all else…

    In terms of America’s technical capability going forward…it is a race to the bottom…incidentally these professions in the US are now dominated by the children of Asian immigrants…

    Russia too has reason to worry…although the culture rot has not taken a death grip just yet…

    In China…it’s a different story…the government is actively doing all it can to build its intellectual infrastructure…

    They are building up their academic infrastructure in the hard sciences…and the Chinese culture places high value on engineers and scientists…

    The best bright young people are systematically channeled into hard science programs…as they once were in the Soviet model…

    This process of building up the intellectual infrastructure takes time but it will come…

    By then it may well be too late for the US to compete in any kind of technical endeavor…

    And with that will go its military capability…and eventually even the ability to defend itself from more technically advanced rivals…

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The other factor is cultural…young people in the US aren’t interested in mathematics or phsyics…it’s just too hard…you actually have to work that brain…
     
    And anyhow, potential employers prefer low-cost H1b visa immigrant to an American-born and expensively trained engineers (what does a bachelor's degree at Caltech cost now? Oh, here we are, $68,901 a year for the undergraduate degree). Wonder what it costs at Moscow State or Shanghai Tech?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. dearieme says:
    @Randal

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans
     
    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th - the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
     
    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    “the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation”. Defeated only with allies, though:

    WWI was won by the British and French, welcome though the American troops undoubtedly were.

    WWII against Germany was won first by the British hanging on by their fingernails and then by the Red Army taking huge casualties to expel the Germans and then conquer them.

    Even the US triumph against Japan depended in part on most of the Japanese army being tied down in China throughout the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    WWI was fought to a standstill until the arrival of fresh American troops. Had the US not entered the war, the Germans wouldn't have had to surrender and there could have been a reasonable peace treaty that probably would have prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII.

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn't joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would've been able to hang on "by their fingernails" or that the Soviets would've been able to "expel" and "conquer" the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They'd be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn't entered WWII.

    The defeat of Japan had very little to do with the Japanese Army being "tied down in China". The Japanese would have had no problem with China if the US had not been bombing and burning them from the Pacific. It was the American Navy, mostly, that defeated the Japanese, so the Japanese Army, which had success only against people with poorly armed militaries, had little role to play against the Americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. dearieme says:
    @The Scalpel
    "Whether the US “won” in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. "

    Everybody knows the motivation was to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq no longer possesses WMD's so the US won! Small caveat. There were never WMD's so the war was unnecessary. The military industrial complex did make a killing though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

    Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Switzerland has oil?
    , @Jim Christian

    Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?
     
    Aside from the WMD nonsense, Cheney and Rummy were going to find the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons of Baghdad and send a few copies of our Declaration of Independence and let them build a 2nd America. That didn't work out HERE so well, given the Civil War, but that's another story. Fact is, after we pulled Saddam out of his hole we ought to have re-instated him and left. Or handed him over and THEN left. Either way, here they are, 15 years later, still killing each other and us when they get the opportunity.
    , @Anon
    "Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?"

    Since when the Feds and Pentagon have been involved in philanthropy? Look at the smirking idiot Bush and the psychopathic Cheney; do they look like two decent human beings caring for humanity? - Not at all. They are the traitors to the US Constitution and to the humanity at large.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mikel says:

    Interesting comments.

    But, perhaps due to my lack of Hegelian analytical skills, the author has not convinced me that Russia has a military technological advantage over the US.

    I would be more persuaded if I had some hard evidence that all those Kalibr missiles are really hitting their targets with reasonable precision in Syria. Or if the Syrians, with their Russian AA defense systems, could manage to shoot down some Israeli plane/drone/missile at least once.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Roy
    My sentiments exactly. He talks about how having the most powerful military "will generate it's own weakness " but never gets around to explaining how.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam (see here or here) we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countrie

    Not since Vietnam but all along from the Spanish-American war of 1898 until today. Both world wars were entered at the very last moment when the other combatants were already bled white. Vietnam and Korea were something of a miscalculation. This opportunistic preying upon weak opponents is the US’s winning strategy and although it’s easily derided as cowardly, treacherous, etc, it’s also one that works and has gained the US much benefit. This is in contrast to the stupid and suicidal Europeans who’ve hurled themselves at each other like wild dogs, killing millions of their own people and destroying their own countries in the process. All that to fight over which group would gain the upper hand in a relatively limited area.
    No point in thinking in terms of the past, in this case WWII. There’ll be no more grand land invasions, huge tank battles, multi-million massed armies. There’s about three centers which are strong where they are but could never conquer the other. Conflict emerges when one party tries to move into territory another believes to fall within their orbit, such as Ukraine, or when areas a party feels it can do as it pleases becomes contested as in Syria and the ME. There could be limited conflict in the peripheral areas but not full-blown war as everyone realizes that the gains would be outweighed by the costs. Were the US to decide to invade, say, Venezuela and turn it into a huge forced labor camp then who’s to stop them? Who’s going to fight to the death to save them? Conversely, no American would have an interest in dying to “save” Georgia or Uzbekistan. The world is being divided up and what falls under whose umbrella is what’s at stake here. That’s all it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    "There’s about three centers which are strong where they are but could never conquer the other. "

    Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @ThreeCranes
    I think, Saker, that you mistake the role of "war" in America today. The point is not to win. If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let 'er rip.

    As in so many things, the progressive Germans showed the way. We learned from Hitler that the only way to avoid depressions, maintain full employment while giving bankers a free hand, stimulate research and development while creating steady demand to prop up domestic industry is through ever increasing military expenditures. As was demonstrated during the Roosevelt administration and in Japan today government spending on infrastructure just won't provide enough demand to keep things ticking along smoothly. The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism.

    Americans have long had a reputation for being overoptimistic; some say, naively so. They consistently overestimate the power of positive thinking. This pragmatism works until one day, it doesn't.

    But don't underestimate America, Saker. When the dross has burned off, when today's Washington D.C. posers are ground to dust, there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today. But under the right conditions they will emerge. America, like Russia, was a wild frontier country not too long ago. Those were some hard-bitten men who swept the Indians off the plains, cleared timber, plowed soil with mules, hewed logs and fished offshore in small boats. Their grandsons live today.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Terry%27sTexasRangers.jpg

    http://texashillcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/texas-rangers-3-680x390.jpg

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip

    THAT’S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really? And in the present day, faggy, feminist, transgendered United States which has been putting the kind of MEN you’re talking about OUT of the military in favor of the feminist, faggy and tranny, where are you to find these 20,000,000 men? Or even 2,000,000? It’s because of the high percentage of the faggy, feminist and tranny that we don’t even HAVE 2,000,000 able-bodied ACTUAL men left in this country of the sort of stuff of the men in those pictures.

    Yeah, the MIC is fatally flawed, has been since the beginning of Gee-Whiz widget military budgets, but the overriding factor is the people you would put to sea, to the air, to the ground. And the United States doesn’t pack the necessary human resources for that sort of thing anymore. From the Generals and Admirals down, the society is too weak, too obese and again, far too feminist, faggy and tranny. And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They’re having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Back to the Generals and Admirals, I’m waiting for the losers in the Pentagon who lose wars to lose jobs, prestige and Stars and bars. The losers in the Intel apparatus can’t catch anyone, the police can’t protect us even from our own feral Negros, the military is hopelessly corrupt and faggy. That’s about it in a nutshell.

    We better start polishing up those shiny rebuilt B-61s, because outside of beating third-world shitholes, that’s the only way our military is scary anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "THAT’S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really?"

    Wiki says; "During the war [WW2], over 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces, with 405,399 killed in action and 671,278 wounded..."

    In 1940 population of USA was 132,000,000. Today more than twice that.

    I'm not saying that I'm a kick-ass dude, but I've worked with some out West. Not all American males are fags. The countryside is loaded with guys who can shoot, hunt, fish, who love the outdoors. If your only impression of American males comes from acquaintance with coastal city boys, then you are likely to be sternly re-educated at some point in your life.

    , @Diversity Heretic
    Always enjoy your posts. Like you, I see no way the United States could field a mass army in the present cultural/political conditions. (If I had a son, I would do everything in my power to help him dodge the draft, and I sought to go to West Point in the 1970s--a mark of how attitudes have changed!)

    As for the B-61s, the Nuclear Matters Handbook has a surprisingly candid statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration that it is increasingly difficult to certify the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile. The United States has not tested any nuclear weapon or device since the early 1990s, even to the extent of putting it in a hole and seeing if it will still go off, and some of the secondaries in the weapons were last tested at full yield in the 1960s. None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s--approaching or already at 30 years, and the estimates of their performance in their present state is mostly theoretical.

    Other nuclear powers (except North Korea) haven't tested either, so they may have similar problems. It may be, however, that they designed weapons with long service lives in mind, rather than cutting-edge technology intended to achieve the best yield-to-weight ratio.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Cyrano says:
    @bb.
    Not completely OT but, what do you make of the ''harvesting of russian tissue''(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/us-air-force-admits-harvesting-russian-tissue) and the potential of bio warfare becoming a thing? genetics is advancing considerably. a designer flu could considerably cripple productivity. It may not work in the long run but could supplement first strike capabilities.

    This is obviously a clever campaign to showcase the advantages of multiculturalism over any racially homogeneous country. For example if someone designed a biological weapon that targets a members of a specific genetic group, but in the meantime that nation was clever enough to get its population genetically diversified – obviously the biological weapon is not going to work.

    It all depends on what is the threshold in terms of percentage points of racial purity below which the biological weapon won’t work. Let’s say US designed a weapon that will target a specific genetic group only if members of that genetic group are over 50% genetically pure.

    But if that nation was prepared for that and via multiculturalism achieved genetic purity of no greater than let’s say 10% dominance of any racial or genetic group in any of the targeted individuals -then the racial weapon won’t work.

    This is only meant to show that multicultural US is superior to racially homogeneous countries thanks to their clever policy of multiculturalism and bio-weapons against them have no chance of success. Of course you have to realize that I am only joking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Although I categorically reject biological warfare, it seems to me that the U.S. is very vulnerable, as it is vulnerable to a naturally occurring epidemic that affects one racial group disproportionately. The first reason for the vulnerability is that the U.S. has little "surge" capacity, such as excess beds in hospitals or the ability to manufacture huge quantities of vaccines or treatments on short notice. Society could very well break down over who gets first access to medicines. And if one racial group suffers disproportionately, there will be a suscipion that the organism was bio-engineered to attack that group, or that allocation of medical resources is allowing the group to suffer disproportionately.

    In short, we'd have a hell of mess. The actual disease might be the least of the problems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @animalogic
    Absolutely right thomas: should the US lose its reserve currency status & should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.

    should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.

    Spend any time at all in the DC region, around the Pentagon, the NSA, the various members of the multi-partnered, Alphabet Soup of Military/Intel Depravity, you’ll understand that THEY will be enriched before anyone else even if it means the rest of the country starves to death. These are the people that kill people after all, the folks that do the snooping, who daily are building DARPA files on everyone involved for blackmail purposes. These days, there’s no one to stand in the way of the MIC getting theirs and more, every single year. And it all flies in the face of the logic laid out by the folks right here. We’re composed in the wrong way to fight the wars they envision. And so the only solution for me is to assume corruption because the way things are composed NOW is too profitable to give up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Andrei Martyanov

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.
     
    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles--capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China's manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don't see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a "father" of Russia's disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely... right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing--but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?
     
    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia--that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia's domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic--from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs--all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

    I doubt we’d allow those means of Chinese production to exist, that is, their advantage. And correct to say, even for the great industrial powers, lead times in shipbuilding are so great a war would be well over before the steel was rounded up even to lay a keel. But if we got to the point of striking each others’ homeland, it would have gone nuclear anyway. Gentlemen, all this is unthinkable. Oh sure, it’s “fun” to kick around, but in the end, all unthinkable starting with North Korea and Iran and especially between what today are the great powers. As regards war-fighting, because of the nukes and the mess THEY respresent, the only way to win, is never to play the game. And nukes are a problem for everyone. The Bigs need nukes not to fly, ever.

    Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it’s TO be done. I suspect we’ll continue to harass each other through surrogates and enjoy the fruits of the Cold Wars. It’s the surrogate countries that seem to suffer most. Pity them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Andrei Martyanov

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.
     
    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles--capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China's manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don't see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a "father" of Russia's disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely... right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing--but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?
     
    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia--that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia's domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic--from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs--all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.

    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I’ve been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.

    That said, that they’re wringing the last nickels out of the currently obsolete constitution of our forces knowing they have the next generation in their back pockets already, is rather reprehensible. The Osprey, the F-35, the Gerald Ford, all of them, massive and deadly corruptions, fatally flawed and VERY expensive and really, they offer no explanation, there’s no obvious justification for these failures outside of the fact they were moneymakers. And they build these in spite of knowing their obsolescence. But I’m not certain they don’t have new toys in the box that will out-fox the toys of other States. The American defense contractor is a sneaky bastard at that..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I’ve been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.
     
    Sorry I missed your post and didn't answer promptly. You, certainly, have a point and I am not insisting on being absolutely right. I merely try to present a compelling argument. What you described in terms of 70s--pretty much same was case in Soviet Union. In the end, Soviet war in Afghanistan saw limited but not insignificant use of PGMs, from TV to laser-guided munitions. That was early 1980s and R&D on that was since late 1950s, actually. With US things started to go downhill namely in 1980s, especially as the gap in submarines was closed pretty much. Once the ability to process very large arrays of information was in place--game changed. What it is today we all, of course, may only speculate about.

    I, however, liked this observation of yours. From your other post:

    And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They’re having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.
     
    Here, you nailed it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Erebus says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.
     
    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles--capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China's manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don't see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a "father" of Russia's disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely... right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing--but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?
     
    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia--that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia's domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic--from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs--all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.

    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is “Yes, with Chinese characteristics”. In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they’ll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine. It’s a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he’s gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can’t be thinking in Chinese. He’s gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There’s also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to “get it” as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money’s worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an “all Russian” program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.

    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I’m pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Skullcrusher
    Nice theory but way too optimistic. The Chinese will spend a million dollars but not ten dollars. I could revolutionize Chinese industrial efficiency by going to any business a week a month, reviewing the problems, and telling them to spend the $10 to fix each problem over and over and over again. Getting Chinese knobs costs an extra $10 so they get the standard Cyrillic. They did the same thing on a multibillion dollar paper plant on Hainan Island. Bought the plant from the Germans for ~3 billion Euro, but would not pay extra for controls and manuals translated into Chinese, Halon fire suppression systems in the control room, etc.. Insanity! The poor workers were trying to run the plant by memorizing button sequences since they couldn't read anything, and of course they smoked in the main control room and managed to set off the sprinkler system. I had dinner in Shanghai with one of the rotating staff of 30-40 German babysitters they ended up hiring to keep the place semi-functional. He had a million stories ...
    , @Ondrej

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine. It’s a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he’s gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can’t be thinking in Chinese. He’s gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.
     
    Bingo!

    As side note - this is typical Sapir–Whorf hypothesis:
    The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition.

    Interesting pattern in english literature is that hypothesis largely dismissed, but in Russian it is actively researched..
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine.
     
    With training they will master it. They have done a good job of learning English. I only need to learn the meaning of a few icons to drive my Toyota. It doesn't matter whether those icons are little pictures, English words or Russian. In combat pilots surely don't have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.

    Russian is not that complex. It is just another Indo-European language spelled phonetically. They have more case endings than English, but about the same as Latin. Once you learn the Cyrillic alphabet, you will see many words in common with western languages. What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?
    , @Ondrej

    expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they’ll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.
     
    You mean something like this?
    In this case, It looks like train already left station long ago.
    Can you for example recognize girls allegiance by their uniform ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1L-Jfhq2IQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSPQLI1EFo4

    , @esoteric
    Speaking of Russian-Chinese cooperation - I am reminded of the time I was presenting some advanced 1D computation fluid dynamics software to a room full of Phd's in the Chinese aviation MIC headquarterws in Xian (having come from their HQ in Chendu)

    I commented to the lovely lass video-recording the presentation that it must be unusual to get non-Chinese here.

    "Oh no" she said. "In the next room is a Russian Airforce General running a seminar".
    It turns out that Russians and Israelis were all over the place.

    Our software distributor's lead technical consultant's PhD thesis was on how to tailor the exhaust plume of one of their J20 fighter planes to significantly decrease the radar detection distance required. He sent it to me and I think I still have a copy of it somewhere.
    He was only 25 and one of the 25,000 engineering PhD's China turns out each year.

    The west has lost any future war to the more self-disciplined, intellectually advanced, dedicated, nationalistic societies of Russia and East Asia. We had our time in the sun and squandered it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Erebus

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.
     
    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is "Yes, with Chinese characteristics". In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they'll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35's systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can't be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a "cookbook" understanding of the machine. It's a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he's gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can't be thinking in Chinese. He's gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There's also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to "get it" as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money's worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an "all Russian" program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.


    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I'm pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.

    Nice theory but way too optimistic. The Chinese will spend a million dollars but not ten dollars. I could revolutionize Chinese industrial efficiency by going to any business a week a month, reviewing the problems, and telling them to spend the $10 to fix each problem over and over and over again. Getting Chinese knobs costs an extra $10 so they get the standard Cyrillic. They did the same thing on a multibillion dollar paper plant on Hainan Island. Bought the plant from the Germans for ~3 billion Euro, but would not pay extra for controls and manuals translated into Chinese, Halon fire suppression systems in the control room, etc.. Insanity! The poor workers were trying to run the plant by memorizing button sequences since they couldn’t read anything, and of course they smoked in the main control room and managed to set off the sprinkler system. I had dinner in Shanghai with one of the rotating staff of 30-40 German babysitters they ended up hiring to keep the place semi-functional. He had a million stories …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Nice theory but way too optimistic.
     
    No, it has nothing to do with "optimism" or otherwise. Erebus is spot on in giving a subject the treatment he gave. Not only it is legitimate but it is highly probable. Now comes my personal experiences with many things military, including with foreign (Arab, African etc.) cadets and officers--all so called "command words" (there is a special book dedicated to that) for their trainees were strictly Russian, the same as they were taught in Russian. Not because Russians are chauvinists but precisely because of the issue which Erebus described. Many Arab militaries, as an example, continued to use Russian language in combat for a reason. Try to teach calculus or combat system integration in Swahili, good luck with that. But here we are getting into a very specific subject.
    , @Erebus
    What's to be "optimistic" (or pessimistic) about?

    I found it interesting, and I'm pretty sure this is an aspect of the sale that would have been considered and discussed in detail. The HMI (Human-Machine Interface) of any complex system gets a lot of attention, and in the case of an SU35, it would surely get a disproportionally enormous amount.

    I smiled at your Hainan Island paper plant story. I'm currently at the tail end of an English-Chinese HMI project that has run into a more than a few vexing issues, and these were not only matters of translating the labels. Perhaps the buyers of that plant foresaw those issues and wanted to avoid them in the mistaken belief that the Chinese' ability to memorize complex sequences would save the day. I told my client countless times that it would be cheaper to hire English readers to run the machinery than to make the necessary changes when all things are considered, but that fell on deaf ears.
    I've run into the "penny-wise-pound-foolish" Chinese businessman more times than I can count, but, frankly I can't see the PLA looking to save $10 on new knobs. We're talking about the defence of the country in a turbulent time and a great deal is at stake. The PLA takes that very seriously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. theMann says:
    @Cyrano
    I think that Pierre de Coubertin would be proud of US for living according to the Olympic principle: It’s not important to win, but to participate. And then let someone else win the wars and then take credit for it.

    Like in WW2 when USSR did all the fighting and then after the war they discovered that communism is not “democratic”. The shock there, good think that they found out that in time to start the Cold war and prevent their former undemocratic allies from “taking over the world”.

    Then in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    Of course soon after they started using Islam to fight their wars for them, they also conveniently discovered that they too are not democratic, so the war on terror started in order to make sure that their “allies” don’t make too many gains at the expense of democracy.

    Gee, I must of missed the history where the Russians fought at Iwo Jima, Manila, and Okinawa, every battle of which would have been bloodier than Stalingrad if the Japanese could have resupplied.

    The Russians fought, on the whole, rather poorly, a single front war on their own terrain against a known opponent.

    US forces fought a multi-front war against two opponents above and below two oceans, while fighting on the ground in multiple locations of Africa, Europe, multiple Pacific islands, SE Asia and God knows where else. All this while supplying the British, French, Australian, Dutch, Chinese, and yes Russian, armies with massive amounts of material aid (what do you think 400,000 trucks are worth in a war of movement?), the greatest logistic achievement of all time. And did it all while managing about 1\100th the casualties of the other combatants in similar situations.

    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.

    As far as the present, past and future are concerned, “the spiritual to the materiel is as a force of ten to one”, will always be true. Our Navy will always be better than their Navy, our Air Force will always be at least as good as their Air Force, and if you put 10 US infantry men against 10 Russian infantry men, we would win 9 to 1. And for this simple reason: The Russians may be better at dying than we are, but we are WAY better killers than they are. Them, or anyone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.
     
    Damn right. Eastern Front dwarfs anything US ever experienced in its history. I also wonder what would Patton do, in the breaks between inflating 3-4 times Germans he "killed", should he have met with Meinstein, Hoth or Model at the peak of their form and SS and Wehrmacht Panzers, say circa 1942-43. Other than that--sure, USA saved the world, the whole US propaganda machine was built around this delusion and as any sand castle it is disintegrating.
    , @Cyrano
    Those “glorious” victories of US against Japan were nothing more than boat accidents, extra-proportionally glorified by American propaganda. Chew on this one for a while: US already had the nuclear bombs and Truman still begged Stalin to help him defeat Japan with a massive offensive in Manchuria. Which Stalin did.

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something. I am sending you a link too. Read and weep - at least someone in your country is still capable of publishing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @anonymous

    If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam (see here or here) we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countrie
     
    Not since Vietnam but all along from the Spanish-American war of 1898 until today. Both world wars were entered at the very last moment when the other combatants were already bled white. Vietnam and Korea were something of a miscalculation. This opportunistic preying upon weak opponents is the US's winning strategy and although it's easily derided as cowardly, treacherous, etc, it's also one that works and has gained the US much benefit. This is in contrast to the stupid and suicidal Europeans who've hurled themselves at each other like wild dogs, killing millions of their own people and destroying their own countries in the process. All that to fight over which group would gain the upper hand in a relatively limited area.
    No point in thinking in terms of the past, in this case WWII. There'll be no more grand land invasions, huge tank battles, multi-million massed armies. There's about three centers which are strong where they are but could never conquer the other. Conflict emerges when one party tries to move into territory another believes to fall within their orbit, such as Ukraine, or when areas a party feels it can do as it pleases becomes contested as in Syria and the ME. There could be limited conflict in the peripheral areas but not full-blown war as everyone realizes that the gains would be outweighed by the costs. Were the US to decide to invade, say, Venezuela and turn it into a huge forced labor camp then who's to stop them? Who's going to fight to the death to save them? Conversely, no American would have an interest in dying to "save" Georgia or Uzbekistan. The world is being divided up and what falls under whose umbrella is what's at stake here. That's all it is.

    “There’s about three centers which are strong where they are but could never conquer the other. ”

    Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Rich says:
    @dearieme
    "the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation". Defeated only with allies, though:

    WWI was won by the British and French, welcome though the American troops undoubtedly were.

    WWII against Germany was won first by the British hanging on by their fingernails and then by the Red Army taking huge casualties to expel the Germans and then conquer them.

    Even the US triumph against Japan depended in part on most of the Japanese army being tied down in China throughout the war.

    WWI was fought to a standstill until the arrival of fresh American troops. Had the US not entered the war, the Germans wouldn’t have had to surrender and there could have been a reasonable peace treaty that probably would have prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII.

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.

    The defeat of Japan had very little to do with the Japanese Army being “tied down in China”. The Japanese would have had no problem with China if the US had not been bombing and burning them from the Pacific. It was the American Navy, mostly, that defeated the Japanese, so the Japanese Army, which had success only against people with poorly armed militaries, had little role to play against the Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.
     
    That is why US cannot win a war since WWII because continues to reside in a complete delusion about it. You just demonstrated a depth of this problem. Once again--read this:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    From this:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700621210/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509813948&sr=1-1&keywords=when+titans+clashed+how+the+red+army+stopped+hitler

    Learn not to express opinion on something what you have no clue about and avoid spreading propaganda from US MSM.
    , @Philip Owen
    Britain in the 30's was pacifist. The first spitfire wasn't produced until after Munich. Merlin engine powered fighter planes were the only effective weapons the UK had in 1940. But even in 1940, the UK started to out produce Germany in every class of weapon: planes, ships and tanks, without counting Canada. Assuming USSR stayed neutral, the British Empire would have eventually beaten Germany in a straight fight. The UK didn't have a strategic bomber in action until 1942. Build up takes time. More money, more men (5 million Indians volunteered for the army), more weapons, more oil to fuel jet engines. USSR neutrality mattered. USSR supplied Germany with rubber the most critical raw material for Germany. Make a plane or a car or even wheels for a decent horse cart without rubber? The UK was also on the right track for an A bomb, unlike the Germans.

    The USSR was forced into the fight by Germany and Japan expanded its war to attack the US and the UK so it wasn't a straight fight. Canadian Valentine tanks diverted in mid ocean from the UK were defending Moscow by December 1941. The US clearly shortened the war by 3 or 4 years but the UK could hold Germany back and blockade it and UK/Russia could defeat it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. MarkinLA says:

    While a lot of comments and articles have mentioned the relative poor performance of older weapons systems like the Patriot missile and tried to project their performance out to the future, one does have to remember the great strides made in microelectronics.

    I worked on some of those old computers which had components well behind the commercial world in order to meet the military specifications. The machines were slow, had small (16 to 24 bit) registers in precision, and the memory was small. There wasn’t much they could really do compared to even an Apple II. The focal plane arrays for IR imaging systems had to be cryogenically cooled and had a very small number of pixels (64X64 or 128X128 was typical). The frame rates for these system were slow as well – not much faster than analog TV (30 Hz).

    We now have computers millions of times faster, video systems that are probably thousands of times faster and more precise. I would bet even the radar systems are many more times as advanced due to microelectronics. We also have application specific ICs similar to PC graphics card chip sets that can calculate instant solutions to complex math problems.

    This doesn’t mean that I think the US is in some superior position and can start a nuclear war with impunity.

    It is just a comment on the massive change in weapons technology in 30 years. If you are not directly involved with the development of these systems there is no way you can know their capabilities. I left defense in 1994 and even then we were using 12.5 Mhz 386 (mil-spec version) chips which had at least 100 times the computing power of those old military computers designed in the 60s.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Christian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @Jim Christian

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip
     
    THAT'S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really? And in the present day, faggy, feminist, transgendered United States which has been putting the kind of MEN you're talking about OUT of the military in favor of the feminist, faggy and tranny, where are you to find these 20,000,000 men? Or even 2,000,000? It's because of the high percentage of the faggy, feminist and tranny that we don't even HAVE 2,000,000 able-bodied ACTUAL men left in this country of the sort of stuff of the men in those pictures.

    Yeah, the MIC is fatally flawed, has been since the beginning of Gee-Whiz widget military budgets, but the overriding factor is the people you would put to sea, to the air, to the ground. And the United States doesn't pack the necessary human resources for that sort of thing anymore. From the Generals and Admirals down, the society is too weak, too obese and again, far too feminist, faggy and tranny. And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They're having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Back to the Generals and Admirals, I'm waiting for the losers in the Pentagon who lose wars to lose jobs, prestige and Stars and bars. The losers in the Intel apparatus can't catch anyone, the police can't protect us even from our own feral Negros, the military is hopelessly corrupt and faggy. That's about it in a nutshell.

    We better start polishing up those shiny rebuilt B-61s, because outside of beating third-world shitholes, that's the only way our military is scary anymore.

    “THAT’S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really?”

    Wiki says; “During the war [WW2], over 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces, with 405,399 killed in action and 671,278 wounded…”

    In 1940 population of USA was 132,000,000. Today more than twice that.

    I’m not saying that I’m a kick-ass dude, but I’ve worked with some out West. Not all American males are fags. The countryside is loaded with guys who can shoot, hunt, fish, who love the outdoors. If your only impression of American males comes from acquaintance with coastal city boys, then you are likely to be sternly re-educated at some point in your life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Fair enough takes. I carry concealed, a kick-ass city or country boy might be re-edumicated about messing with 60 year-old guys. So far however, I never let anyone have it that didn't have it coming. Again, your takes are fair and cogent. Our kick-ass city and country boys were the norm back when I went in. Nerds were about the same proportion in the population as obese girls, that is, there were very, very few.. The rest of us got pounded playing sports, organized or sandlots. Which led to fights, handshakes and the learning of some honor. From High School, you were college material or you weren't, sometimes you were, but had no money and there were no loans. Those who were not college material, well that saying went, "The world needs ditch diggers too". The boys learned a trade, went into the military. The girls who were not college material stayed slender and got married and had babies. The girls who were became teachers and frequently found their husband at college. Now look, I don't say out in the hinterlands, or even in the coastal cities there aren't kick-ass boys, but it certainly isn't encouraged or even tolerated. But if you think the same proportions of kick-ass boys out there exist to the tune of 5, 10, 20 million in THIS country, forget it. We couldn't raise the same standing army and Navy we did back in the teens and 40s, I cannot fathom it. Aside from the physical characteristics of the inductees a boot camp would have to deal with, there isn't the same spirit in kids.

    For most, Mom is the one that left Junior fatherless, Apple Pie is from a wax paper wrapper with Hostess printed on it and Chevrolet is a $22,000-dollar bent shit can with three shots of clear coat made in cooperation with Kia of China. That is not an America that builds morale. To top it off, the education of our children toward heritage and war and sacrifice has changed, you'd have to re-program the kids in many ways. Just ain't happening. And then, there are the girls, the first ones that would have to be reformed for wartime, the ones we have, no good. For starters...Naw, it's over..

    , @A.B. Prosper
    It was a 90% White homogeneous industrial society at that time. It was highly religious and even our leftists were far more rough and tumble than we see now

    We are much less industrialized and trust me pajama boy isn't going to be fighting Russia

    If you want to send all the country boys off to fight Russia, good luck with that . YOu've just turned the US over the SJW's

    All this speculation is also predicated on no one being able to target CONUS. I'm not so sure of that these days. A few well placed attacks could turn our cities feral , shut down our production and repair capacity and leave us in a world of hurt

    Its also massively easier since our peer competitors now have precision guided weapons as well
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Rich
    WWI was fought to a standstill until the arrival of fresh American troops. Had the US not entered the war, the Germans wouldn't have had to surrender and there could have been a reasonable peace treaty that probably would have prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII.

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn't joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would've been able to hang on "by their fingernails" or that the Soviets would've been able to "expel" and "conquer" the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They'd be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn't entered WWII.

    The defeat of Japan had very little to do with the Japanese Army being "tied down in China". The Japanese would have had no problem with China if the US had not been bombing and burning them from the Pacific. It was the American Navy, mostly, that defeated the Japanese, so the Japanese Army, which had success only against people with poorly armed militaries, had little role to play against the Americans.

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.

    That is why US cannot win a war since WWII because continues to reside in a complete delusion about it. You just demonstrated a depth of this problem. Once again–read this:

    From this:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700621210/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509813948&sr=1-1&keywords=when+titans+clashed+how+the+red+army+stopped+hitler

    Learn not to express opinion on something what you have no clue about and avoid spreading propaganda from US MSM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There's six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn't mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

    , @TomSchmidt
    Thanks for this. When you read the Generalplan OST, you have to be grateful the Soviets won that struggle. Two million German soldiers worked to death in captivity doesn't compare to what the Nazis had planned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @theMann
    Gee, I must of missed the history where the Russians fought at Iwo Jima, Manila, and Okinawa, every battle of which would have been bloodier than Stalingrad if the Japanese could have resupplied.

    The Russians fought, on the whole, rather poorly, a single front war on their own terrain against a known opponent.


    US forces fought a multi-front war against two opponents above and below two oceans, while fighting on the ground in multiple locations of Africa, Europe, multiple Pacific islands, SE Asia and God knows where else. All this while supplying the British, French, Australian, Dutch, Chinese, and yes Russian, armies with massive amounts of material aid (what do you think 400,000 trucks are worth in a war of movement?), the greatest logistic achievement of all time. And did it all while managing about 1\100th the casualties of the other combatants in similar situations.


    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.



    As far as the present, past and future are concerned, "the spiritual to the materiel is as a force of ten to one", will always be true. Our Navy will always be better than their Navy, our Air Force will always be at least as good as their Air Force, and if you put 10 US infantry men against 10 Russian infantry men, we would win 9 to 1. And for this simple reason: The Russians may be better at dying than we are, but we are WAY better killers than they are. Them, or anyone else.

    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.

    Damn right. Eastern Front dwarfs anything US ever experienced in its history. I also wonder what would Patton do, in the breaks between inflating 3-4 times Germans he “killed”, should he have met with Meinstein, Hoth or Model at the peak of their form and SS and Wehrmacht Panzers, say circa 1942-43. Other than that–sure, USA saved the world, the whole US propaganda machine was built around this delusion and as any sand castle it is disintegrating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    although I agree with you generally about the relative size and scale of the Red Army and the United States Army contribution to victory over the German WWII military, Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted. Still and all, Patton's achievement in pulling out of one attack, turning 90° and attacking along another axis, all in bad winter weather, was a very skillfully conducted manoever.

    By the way, Hasso von Manteuffel, who commanded the 5th Panzer Army in the Ardennes attack, was no slouch as a soldier either.
    , @L.K

    I also wonder what would Patton do, in the breaks between inflating 3-4 times Germans he “killed” blah, blah
     
    Yes, Patton did indeed inflate German casualties, so did other Americans, the British AND the Soviets.
    That is why a serious person does not use wartime estimates to access the other side's losses.

    What is pathetic though, is that a cheap propagandist like you, year 2017, feels compelled to exaggerate
    German troop strength and their casualties while at the same time lying about Red Army real figures, all in a sad attempt to make the Red Army look much better than it actually was.

    You are so ridiculous that you accused me of making up Krivosheev's numbers for 1944, that I had never read him nieh, nieh, in the end forcing me to scan the page and upload it, proving you to be the bald faced liar you are. You remember this, right: https://justpaste.it/1cvij

    Even after that, you never conceded the point and went right on with your obfuscation

    I pity anybody who is gullible enough to take you seriously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Skullcrusher
    Nice theory but way too optimistic. The Chinese will spend a million dollars but not ten dollars. I could revolutionize Chinese industrial efficiency by going to any business a week a month, reviewing the problems, and telling them to spend the $10 to fix each problem over and over and over again. Getting Chinese knobs costs an extra $10 so they get the standard Cyrillic. They did the same thing on a multibillion dollar paper plant on Hainan Island. Bought the plant from the Germans for ~3 billion Euro, but would not pay extra for controls and manuals translated into Chinese, Halon fire suppression systems in the control room, etc.. Insanity! The poor workers were trying to run the plant by memorizing button sequences since they couldn't read anything, and of course they smoked in the main control room and managed to set off the sprinkler system. I had dinner in Shanghai with one of the rotating staff of 30-40 German babysitters they ended up hiring to keep the place semi-functional. He had a million stories ...

    Nice theory but way too optimistic.

    No, it has nothing to do with “optimism” or otherwise. Erebus is spot on in giving a subject the treatment he gave. Not only it is legitimate but it is highly probable. Now comes my personal experiences with many things military, including with foreign (Arab, African etc.) cadets and officers–all so called “command words” (there is a special book dedicated to that) for their trainees were strictly Russian, the same as they were taught in Russian. Not because Russians are chauvinists but precisely because of the issue which Erebus described. Many Arab militaries, as an example, continued to use Russian language in combat for a reason. Try to teach calculus or combat system integration in Swahili, good luck with that. But here we are getting into a very specific subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Lol, there is than more to this old saying that French is a language of love. Then English is a language of business communications and markets and quite reasonably Russian is a language of war considering Russia and Soviet Russian army record and background. In ancient times Latin was used same way in the military even when soldiers already were not native Latin speakers. This is very interesting topic. I wonder whether usage of Russian improve performance of aboriginals compared to them using own language and is there objective data.
    , @Ondrej
    I have heard similar stories for fighter pilots of Arab countries trained at Czechoslovakia Flight Academy (now Slovakia - Košice) or by Czechoslovak instructors in their countries.

    But, if it was true I do not know...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Cyrano says:
    @theMann
    Gee, I must of missed the history where the Russians fought at Iwo Jima, Manila, and Okinawa, every battle of which would have been bloodier than Stalingrad if the Japanese could have resupplied.

    The Russians fought, on the whole, rather poorly, a single front war on their own terrain against a known opponent.


    US forces fought a multi-front war against two opponents above and below two oceans, while fighting on the ground in multiple locations of Africa, Europe, multiple Pacific islands, SE Asia and God knows where else. All this while supplying the British, French, Australian, Dutch, Chinese, and yes Russian, armies with massive amounts of material aid (what do you think 400,000 trucks are worth in a war of movement?), the greatest logistic achievement of all time. And did it all while managing about 1\100th the casualties of the other combatants in similar situations.


    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.



    As far as the present, past and future are concerned, "the spiritual to the materiel is as a force of ten to one", will always be true. Our Navy will always be better than their Navy, our Air Force will always be at least as good as their Air Force, and if you put 10 US infantry men against 10 Russian infantry men, we would win 9 to 1. And for this simple reason: The Russians may be better at dying than we are, but we are WAY better killers than they are. Them, or anyone else.

    Those “glorious” victories of US against Japan were nothing more than boat accidents, extra-proportionally glorified by American propaganda. Chew on this one for a while: US already had the nuclear bombs and Truman still begged Stalin to help him defeat Japan with a massive offensive in Manchuria. Which Stalin did.

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something. I am sending you a link too. Read and weep – at least someone in your country is still capable of publishing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Ha...I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this...

    I have an interesting mind-question...how many Aermicans [or in the wider West for that matter] actually know that this episode of WW2 even happened...?

    I say this because I only became aware of the existence of the Soviet-Japanese war only very recently...and quite by accident...

    And then I began feeling angry...that such an important piece of history has been so deliberately concealed from The People...

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information...anyone interested can start with wikipedia...and follow some of the references...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

    A good doc on youtube is here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuMDG2TvcY

    But I like this one even better...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjygZML_X-o

    And here is a 200 page treatise from US Army historian David Glantz...[which I'm still plowing through...]

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    Some of the interesting things I learned...

    1. The Japs were deathly afraid of the Soviets and Stalin...not surprising having seen the mighty German war machine completely destroyed by same...

    2..The Russians upon entering Manchuria were quite amused by the Japanese weapons...their tanks with 50 mm guns were pea shooters compared to German equipment...their landmines were laughably simple...

    3. Russian generals couldn't comprehend how the US had so much trouble and took so much time to subdue the Japs in Iwo Jima etc...

    The Russian war machine was a battle-hardened monster that just ate up the Japs in a couple of quick bites across the vast territory of Manchuria...same with the Kurils, Sakhalin and Hokkaido was next on the list...

    One gets the impression that if Stalin had just said 'no thanks' the US might still be fighting the Japs to this day...
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something.
     
    I think you may be laying it on a bit thick, never-the-less it is certainly true that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and South Sakhalin) is probably the most underrated campaign in all the Second World War. It had as much to do with the Japanese surrender as anything that went on at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, if not more so.

    The Japanese surrendered to the USA on September 2nd, 1945 (the 1,975th anniversary of the battle of Actium), because it's just a short hop from South Sakhalin to Hokkaido. The Soviets were about to invade the Home Islands (as were we, of course), and thus they (the Japanese, that is) evaded the prospect of northern Japan under Soviet domination.
    , @Vidi

    USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well.
     
    Japan was fighting a Chinese insurgency as well; that may have prevented them from focusing on the USSR threat. The Chinese were fighting a bitter civil war, so they were unable repel the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. However, a guerilla war against the Japanese kept them busy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Jim Christian

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip
     
    THAT'S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really? And in the present day, faggy, feminist, transgendered United States which has been putting the kind of MEN you're talking about OUT of the military in favor of the feminist, faggy and tranny, where are you to find these 20,000,000 men? Or even 2,000,000? It's because of the high percentage of the faggy, feminist and tranny that we don't even HAVE 2,000,000 able-bodied ACTUAL men left in this country of the sort of stuff of the men in those pictures.

    Yeah, the MIC is fatally flawed, has been since the beginning of Gee-Whiz widget military budgets, but the overriding factor is the people you would put to sea, to the air, to the ground. And the United States doesn't pack the necessary human resources for that sort of thing anymore. From the Generals and Admirals down, the society is too weak, too obese and again, far too feminist, faggy and tranny. And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They're having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Back to the Generals and Admirals, I'm waiting for the losers in the Pentagon who lose wars to lose jobs, prestige and Stars and bars. The losers in the Intel apparatus can't catch anyone, the police can't protect us even from our own feral Negros, the military is hopelessly corrupt and faggy. That's about it in a nutshell.

    We better start polishing up those shiny rebuilt B-61s, because outside of beating third-world shitholes, that's the only way our military is scary anymore.

    Always enjoy your posts. Like you, I see no way the United States could field a mass army in the present cultural/political conditions. (If I had a son, I would do everything in my power to help him dodge the draft, and I sought to go to West Point in the 1970s–a mark of how attitudes have changed!)

    As for the B-61s, the Nuclear Matters Handbook has a surprisingly candid statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration that it is increasingly difficult to certify the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile. The United States has not tested any nuclear weapon or device since the early 1990s, even to the extent of putting it in a hole and seeing if it will still go off, and some of the secondaries in the weapons were last tested at full yield in the 1960s. None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s–approaching or already at 30 years, and the estimates of their performance in their present state is mostly theoretical.

    Other nuclear powers (except North Korea) haven’t tested either, so they may have similar problems. It may be, however, that they designed weapons with long service lives in mind, rather than cutting-edge technology intended to achieve the best yield-to-weight ratio.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    As for the B-61,

    None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s–approaching or already at 30 years
     
    We used to load those damned things two or three to an A-6 East of the Italian heel in the Med where they would become part of the nuclear triad. This was mid-70s. The A-6 Es, would, in war, be responsible for a one-way trip north to certain Soviet shipyards where they would reduce said shipyards to a radioactive puddle. For practice carrying them and for us loading them, they would fly and drill with Fabulous Fakes, Whites with Blue stripes, the real ones were all-silver. All this is utterly unclassified these days, by the way. We knew nothing of the innards and special folks would be along to dial-the-yield, that was none of the loaders' business. But since you mention dependability, the electronics packages built into fakes and real weapons alike, weren't terribly dependable. We'd have a hell of a time getting three ready to fly out of six. Understand, the planes are pulling 6 and 7 and more G's, then coming back home with them, they treated to a carrier landing's return and so for us, they weren't so dependable, just for wire checks and their ability to talk to the airplane's electronics, they were a hassle to keep going. The physics within? Damned if I know, none of my business, even as I loaded them. In a war? Would they actually go "Pop"? Who knows?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Rich says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.
     
    That is why US cannot win a war since WWII because continues to reside in a complete delusion about it. You just demonstrated a depth of this problem. Once again--read this:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    From this:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700621210/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509813948&sr=1-1&keywords=when+titans+clashed+how+the+red+army+stopped+hitler

    Learn not to express opinion on something what you have no clue about and avoid spreading propaganda from US MSM.

    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There’s six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn’t mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free..."
     
    Interesting...

    And then there's reality...

    '...Both South and North Korea were almost entirely occupied by United Nations forces. However, once American units neared the Yalu River and the frontier between North Korea and China, the Chinese intervened and drastically changed the character of the war. [US] Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced to retreat all the way back to South Korea...'
     

    '...The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history...'
     

    '...The Chinese broke through the American defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the South Korean capital...'
     

    '...Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble...'
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_United_States_Army#Korean_War
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
     
    So, operating with facts, numbers and, get this, reputable American historical sources is anti-American now? Oh my. Live and learn.

    The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
     
    LOL.
    , @BB753
    "a victory doesn’t mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children."

    To the contrary, victory means precisely this, and that's the only way to actually win a war in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Which is why we're always winning battles but losing wars.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Team America vs Team Russia. Talk about a battle of idiots.
    , @The Scalpel
    "The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours."


    The US never invaded Spain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Andrei Martyanov

    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.
     
    Damn right. Eastern Front dwarfs anything US ever experienced in its history. I also wonder what would Patton do, in the breaks between inflating 3-4 times Germans he "killed", should he have met with Meinstein, Hoth or Model at the peak of their form and SS and Wehrmacht Panzers, say circa 1942-43. Other than that--sure, USA saved the world, the whole US propaganda machine was built around this delusion and as any sand castle it is disintegrating.

    although I agree with you generally about the relative size and scale of the Red Army and the United States Army contribution to victory over the German WWII military, Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted. Still and all, Patton’s achievement in pulling out of one attack, turning 90° and attacking along another axis, all in bad winter weather, was a very skillfully conducted manoever.

    By the way, Hasso von Manteuffel, who commanded the 5th Panzer Army in the Ardennes attack, was no slouch as a soldier either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted.
     
    Might argue? That is a funny way to put it. Look at the number of Volksgrenadier Division, as an example during Ardennes and that will give you a good clue. Most importantly, take a look at actions of Gerow's V Corps, heroism of 2nd and 99th Divisions which faced the worst, and in general look at actions of Hodges 1st Army and, yes, able command by Montgomery who was given command of the 1st and 9th (taken from under Bradley's command, which was an issue). The main thrust was on the Northern Face of Bulge and here is what people who study military history not from Hollywood know damn well:

    Here are some notes.

    In 2011, the site of US Army's 99th Infantry Division Association published an essay titled "Explaining the Silence Surrounding Elsenborne Ridge Battle" where it referred to a booklet by a Belgian historian Leon Nyssen who, far from adhering to Patton and Bastogne mandatory worship, made a conclusion which was looking into anyone's face once the map of Ardennes Battle was opened. As Nyssen noted:

    "Many different battles were fought all through the Battle of the Bulge, also called the Ardennes Battle. The Elsenborn battle has a specific place in history. In fact, it is known as the area where the German attack was held in check from the second day. Any action following this battle was nothing else but an inevitable consequence of this fiasco. This did not mean that the skirmishes, which occurred during the following weeks and pitted the opposing forces, were not important or were lacking rage. Far from it. It is just as unreasonable to maintain that the American success during the Elsenborn battle was enough to assure the Allies’ victory during this lengthy and bloody Ardennes campaign. However, this battle definitely ruined Hitler’s hopes of crushing the western front". [34]

    The truth, however, about why a crucial event and the crucial sector of the Ardennes Battle found so little resonance in American historiography was succinctly observed by Eliot Wager:

    "Just as one cannot mention Waterloo without thinking about Cambronne’s famous word, it is impossible to mention Bastogne without having someone adding “Nuts!” This “historical” word was uttered by Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe. The two are inseparable. There is not a book written concerning the Battle of Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) that does not devote many paragraphs, if not pages, to this episode. Neither generals Clarke nor Hasbrouck in Saint Vith, nor Colonels Butler or O’Brien in Montjoie (Monschau), nor Generals Lauer or Robertson at Elsenborn and Col. Daniel at the Butgenbach estate had the free time to pronounce a historical word. If they ever did there were no war correspondents there to capture and relay them. They all did their duty with the goal of being efficient. They didn’t try becoming popular by carrying revolvers decorated with mother-of-pearl grips, wearing defused hand grenades hooked up to their shoulder straps or go to the front line to take potshots at the enemy. This usually provoked the enemy to retaliate and caused unjustified losses to the GIs.". One should also mention the rivalry between General George S. Patton, Commander, 3rd U.S. Army and General Hodges, Commander, 1st U.S. Army. Each wanted to claim that he was the one who stopped the Germans. General Patton had a knack of getting the press to talk or to write about him. General Hodges was not concerned about his reputation. This created an atmosphere concerning the performance of his men as a reflection of his own less flamboyant management style. However, it is General Hodges who should have been given credit for defeating the Germans.

     

    Just FYI. But even that is a separate topic, since has to deal with momentum. But this observation of yours is spot on:

    and that the German war effort was already severely depleted
     
    And no, Patton's performance in Lorraine and in Ardennes is rather underwhelming, even against forces he encountered there.

    But that is what Atkinson states, read attentively, since it is one of those admissions which matter:

    As Rick Atkinson admitted in 1995, he could see in Patton: "the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would costs the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. Summing up the achievements of his troops in crushing the German counterattack of December 1944, Patton with pardonable pride claims to have "moved farther and faster and engaged more divisions in less time than any other army in the history of the United States--possibly in the history of the world... No country can stand against such an Army." These memoirs are valuable not least in showing, however unwittingly, that a disastrous presumption of invincibility took root in the ranks of officers who led the American military after World War II."
     
    What was 3rd Army's actual performance even against exhausted Wehrmacht is expertly reviewed here: Advance and Destroy. Patton as Commander in the Bulge. John Nelson Rickard. The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly Publisher for the Commonwealth. 2011. Here is quote:
    "there was nothing brilliant about his (Patton's) performance in the Bulge".(c) Once one begins to view his campaign in Lorraine--everything becomes clear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. FB says:
    @Cyrano
    Those “glorious” victories of US against Japan were nothing more than boat accidents, extra-proportionally glorified by American propaganda. Chew on this one for a while: US already had the nuclear bombs and Truman still begged Stalin to help him defeat Japan with a massive offensive in Manchuria. Which Stalin did.

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something. I am sending you a link too. Read and weep - at least someone in your country is still capable of publishing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

    Ha…I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this…

    I have an interesting mind-question…how many Aermicans [or in the wider West for that matter] actually know that this episode of WW2 even happened…?

    I say this because I only became aware of the existence of the Soviet-Japanese war only very recently…and quite by accident…

    And then I began feeling angry…that such an important piece of history has been so deliberately concealed from The People…

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information…anyone interested can start with wikipedia…and follow some of the references…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

    A good doc on youtube is here…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuMDG2TvcY

    But I like this one even better…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjygZML_X-o

    And here is a 200 page treatise from US Army historian David Glantz…[which I'm still plowing through...]

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    Some of the interesting things I learned…

    1. The Japs were deathly afraid of the Soviets and Stalin…not surprising having seen the mighty German war machine completely destroyed by same…

    2..The Russians upon entering Manchuria were quite amused by the Japanese weapons…their tanks with 50 mm guns were pea shooters compared to German equipment…their landmines were laughably simple…

    3. Russian generals couldn’t comprehend how the US had so much trouble and took so much time to subdue the Japs in Iwo Jima etc…

    The Russian war machine was a battle-hardened monster that just ate up the Japs in a couple of quick bites across the vast territory of Manchuria…same with the Kurils, Sakhalin and Hokkaido was next on the list…

    One gets the impression that if Stalin had just said ‘no thanks’ the US might still be fighting the Japs to this day…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Thanks brother. You restore my faith in humanity. There is still hope when there are people out there who are capable of telling the truth.
    , @jimmyriddle
    The Japs made a probing attack into Outer Mongolia in 1939 and the Red Army knocked the snot out of them and sent them packing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

    That was one reason they decided to attack the USA rather than the USSR in 1941.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information…anyone interested can start with wikipedia…and follow some of the references…

     

    I was oblivious to this war until I read the autobiography of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. If you want to understand the origins of modern China, this book is a must read.

    Puyi, From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi. Foreign Language Press, Beijing China: 1989 (no ISBN)

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Cyrano
    This is obviously a clever campaign to showcase the advantages of multiculturalism over any racially homogeneous country. For example if someone designed a biological weapon that targets a members of a specific genetic group, but in the meantime that nation was clever enough to get its population genetically diversified – obviously the biological weapon is not going to work.

    It all depends on what is the threshold in terms of percentage points of racial purity below which the biological weapon won’t work. Let’s say US designed a weapon that will target a specific genetic group only if members of that genetic group are over 50% genetically pure.

    But if that nation was prepared for that and via multiculturalism achieved genetic purity of no greater than let’s say 10% dominance of any racial or genetic group in any of the targeted individuals -then the racial weapon won’t work.

    This is only meant to show that multicultural US is superior to racially homogeneous countries thanks to their clever policy of multiculturalism and bio-weapons against them have no chance of success. Of course you have to realize that I am only joking.

    Although I categorically reject biological warfare, it seems to me that the U.S. is very vulnerable, as it is vulnerable to a naturally occurring epidemic that affects one racial group disproportionately. The first reason for the vulnerability is that the U.S. has little “surge” capacity, such as excess beds in hospitals or the ability to manufacture huge quantities of vaccines or treatments on short notice. Society could very well break down over who gets first access to medicines. And if one racial group suffers disproportionately, there will be a suscipion that the organism was bio-engineered to attack that group, or that allocation of medical resources is allowing the group to suffer disproportionately.

    In short, we’d have a hell of mess. The actual disease might be the least of the problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. FB says:
    @Rich
    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There's six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn't mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

    ‘…After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free…”

    Interesting…

    And then there’s reality…

    ‘…Both South and North Korea were almost entirely occupied by United Nations forces. However, once American units neared the Yalu River and the frontier between North Korea and China, the Chinese intervened and drastically changed the character of the war. [US] Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced to retreat all the way back to South Korea…’

    ‘…The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history…

    ‘…The Chinese broke through the American defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the South Korean capital…’

    ‘…Eighth Army’s morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_United_States_Army#Korean_War

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Anti-Americanism seems rampant with a lot of you fellows, so much that you're really unable to see the facts. The fact is that the communist N Koreans invaded the South in the hope of conquering and annexing it. The Americans and their allies fought a bloody conflict which, in the end, resulted in the North being driven out of the South. It's true, the Allied forces did, at one point, occupy most of the North, and had Truman followed MacArthur's advice, all Koreans, as well as the Chinese, would be free today. But the fact is, the Norks were prevented from conquering the South and were driven back behind the 38th parallel. That's a win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Cyrano says:
    @FB
    Ha...I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this...

    I have an interesting mind-question...how many Aermicans [or in the wider West for that matter] actually know that this episode of WW2 even happened...?

    I say this because I only became aware of the existence of the Soviet-Japanese war only very recently...and quite by accident...

    And then I began feeling angry...that such an important piece of history has been so deliberately concealed from The People...

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information...anyone interested can start with wikipedia...and follow some of the references...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

    A good doc on youtube is here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuMDG2TvcY

    But I like this one even better...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjygZML_X-o

    And here is a 200 page treatise from US Army historian David Glantz...[which I'm still plowing through...]

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    Some of the interesting things I learned...

    1. The Japs were deathly afraid of the Soviets and Stalin...not surprising having seen the mighty German war machine completely destroyed by same...

    2..The Russians upon entering Manchuria were quite amused by the Japanese weapons...their tanks with 50 mm guns were pea shooters compared to German equipment...their landmines were laughably simple...

    3. Russian generals couldn't comprehend how the US had so much trouble and took so much time to subdue the Japs in Iwo Jima etc...

    The Russian war machine was a battle-hardened monster that just ate up the Japs in a couple of quick bites across the vast territory of Manchuria...same with the Kurils, Sakhalin and Hokkaido was next on the list...

    One gets the impression that if Stalin had just said 'no thanks' the US might still be fighting the Japs to this day...

    Thanks brother. You restore my faith in humanity. There is still hope when there are people out there who are capable of telling the truth.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Erebus
    A "war" between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

    Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can't win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn't lose much should they be attacked.
    Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM's M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies' confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia's superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn't have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

    Excellent post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Rich says:
    @FB

    '...After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free..."
     
    Interesting...

    And then there's reality...

    '...Both South and North Korea were almost entirely occupied by United Nations forces. However, once American units neared the Yalu River and the frontier between North Korea and China, the Chinese intervened and drastically changed the character of the war. [US] Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced to retreat all the way back to South Korea...'
     

    '...The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history...'
     

    '...The Chinese broke through the American defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the South Korean capital...'
     

    '...Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble...'
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_United_States_Army#Korean_War

    Anti-Americanism seems rampant with a lot of you fellows, so much that you’re really unable to see the facts. The fact is that the communist N Koreans invaded the South in the hope of conquering and annexing it. The Americans and their allies fought a bloody conflict which, in the end, resulted in the North being driven out of the South. It’s true, the Allied forces did, at one point, occupy most of the North, and had Truman followed MacArthur’s advice, all Koreans, as well as the Chinese, would be free today. But the fact is, the Norks were prevented from conquering the South and were driven back behind the 38th parallel. That’s a win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Nothing to do with anti-Americanism...

    Everything to do with pro-facts and actual history...not the smellywood version...

    Sorry I offended you...I just happen to have respect for the truth...

    As for the North 'invading' the south...the facts are much more nuanced...North struck pre-emptively as the US had massed an obvious invasion force on the 38'th parallel...

    You can count Korea and even Vietnam as a 'win' if you want...anyone is free to live in disneyland...

    Speaking of Vietnam...US was kicked out by a small third-world country...remember the rooftop helicopter evacuation of the US embassy in 1975...?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_ImnJrOA0

    US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

    One of the best fighter pilots the US ever had said this...

    'A MiG-21 pilot at Phuc Yen was the best flying job in the world. If I’d been one of them, I’d have got fifty of us!'
     
    ...Robin Olds...flew F4s...

    http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1943jun/13640/

    US lost 445 F4s...

    Viet pilots lost only 154 MiGs total...only 60 -21s...rest were -17s and -19s...
    , @jilles dykstra
    That I criticise the USA is just based on facts.
    I do not criticise the overwhelming majority of the USA people, they're just victims of the two or three % richest USA citizens who run the country.
    Am reading Howard Zinn, the facts are not new to me, but to see them listed one after another, sad reading.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Andrei Martyanov

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.
     
    That is why US cannot win a war since WWII because continues to reside in a complete delusion about it. You just demonstrated a depth of this problem. Once again--read this:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    From this:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700621210/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509813948&sr=1-1&keywords=when+titans+clashed+how+the+red+army+stopped+hitler

    Learn not to express opinion on something what you have no clue about and avoid spreading propaganda from US MSM.

    Thanks for this. When you read the Generalplan OST, you have to be grateful the Soviets won that struggle. Two million German soldiers worked to death in captivity doesn’t compare to what the Nazis had planned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Cyrano
    I think that Pierre de Coubertin would be proud of US for living according to the Olympic principle: It’s not important to win, but to participate. And then let someone else win the wars and then take credit for it.

    Like in WW2 when USSR did all the fighting and then after the war they discovered that communism is not “democratic”. The shock there, good think that they found out that in time to start the Cold war and prevent their former undemocratic allies from “taking over the world”.

    Then in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    Of course soon after they started using Islam to fight their wars for them, they also conveniently discovered that they too are not democratic, so the war on terror started in order to make sure that their “allies” don’t make too many gains at the expense of democracy.

    …in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    I’m experiencing that feeling you get, when someone else impugns your country, and instead of responding with a hearty “Fuck you!”, I feel more inclined to note “What a burn…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. FB says:
    @Rich
    Anti-Americanism seems rampant with a lot of you fellows, so much that you're really unable to see the facts. The fact is that the communist N Koreans invaded the South in the hope of conquering and annexing it. The Americans and their allies fought a bloody conflict which, in the end, resulted in the North being driven out of the South. It's true, the Allied forces did, at one point, occupy most of the North, and had Truman followed MacArthur's advice, all Koreans, as well as the Chinese, would be free today. But the fact is, the Norks were prevented from conquering the South and were driven back behind the 38th parallel. That's a win.

    Nothing to do with anti-Americanism…

    Everything to do with pro-facts and actual history…not the smellywood version…

    Sorry I offended you…I just happen to have respect for the truth…

    As for the North ‘invading’ the south…the facts are much more nuanced…North struck pre-emptively as the US had massed an obvious invasion force on the 38′th parallel…

    You can count Korea and even Vietnam as a ‘win’ if you want…anyone is free to live in disneyland…

    Speaking of Vietnam…US was kicked out by a small third-world country…remember the rooftop helicopter evacuation of the US embassy in 1975…?

    US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

    One of the best fighter pilots the US ever had said this…

    ‘A MiG-21 pilot at Phuc Yen was the best flying job in the world. If I’d been one of them, I’d have got fifty of us!’

    …Robin Olds…flew F4s…

    http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1943jun/13640/

    US lost 445 F4s…

    Viet pilots lost only 154 MiGs total…only 60 -21s…rest were -17s and -19s…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    The US was "kicked out" of Vietnam? Talk about living in Disneyland, but it's probably not even your fault.The leftist media and academia have been pushing that tale for so many years, the less well read repeat it like a mantra. The US pulled its troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and US POWs were freed. South Vietnam was defeated two years later, in 1975. That's an historical fact, whether you like it or not. Until the US withdrawal, the North was on its knees, living in tunnels and hiding from American troops.

    As for Korea, buy a globe, and look at Northeastern Asia. You'll see a line through the 38th parallel. That separates North Korea from South Korea. If the US lost, why does South Korea still exist? The object of the war was to evict the Reds from the South and that objective was achieved. Your opinion that the US was about to invade the North is ridiculous and no serious historian would take it seriously. A Marxist historian might, though, and that's probably the history you read, right "comrade"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. RJJCDA says:

    The Dupuys, father and son, wrote a book NUMBERS, PREDICTIONS AND WAR some years ago and attempted, among other things, to evaluate military competence comparatively of the belligerents in WWII. They tried to factor in number of forces, power of weapons, supplys and other things; and arrived at evaluations absent those things which gave advantages/disadvantages in battles to one or the other:

    #1 Germans
    #2 Americans, British, Canadians
    #3 Russians, Japanese, Italians

    Does the Saker have a comment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    RJJCDA:

    I believe that the German General Staff evaluated the Finns to be the best WWII soldiers.
    , @british brainsize1325cclol
    The british, british americans, british australians should all be bringing up the rear alongside indians and french,according to a Japanese advisor during the ww2 who fought against all these people. British australian cowards anyone ,singapore surrender without much of a fight ring any bells .he he he.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Erebus says:
    @Skullcrusher
    Nice theory but way too optimistic. The Chinese will spend a million dollars but not ten dollars. I could revolutionize Chinese industrial efficiency by going to any business a week a month, reviewing the problems, and telling them to spend the $10 to fix each problem over and over and over again. Getting Chinese knobs costs an extra $10 so they get the standard Cyrillic. They did the same thing on a multibillion dollar paper plant on Hainan Island. Bought the plant from the Germans for ~3 billion Euro, but would not pay extra for controls and manuals translated into Chinese, Halon fire suppression systems in the control room, etc.. Insanity! The poor workers were trying to run the plant by memorizing button sequences since they couldn't read anything, and of course they smoked in the main control room and managed to set off the sprinkler system. I had dinner in Shanghai with one of the rotating staff of 30-40 German babysitters they ended up hiring to keep the place semi-functional. He had a million stories ...

    What’s to be “optimistic” (or pessimistic) about?

    I found it interesting, and I’m pretty sure this is an aspect of the sale that would have been considered and discussed in detail. The HMI (Human-Machine Interface) of any complex system gets a lot of attention, and in the case of an SU35, it would surely get a disproportionally enormous amount.

    I smiled at your Hainan Island paper plant story. I’m currently at the tail end of an English-Chinese HMI project that has run into a more than a few vexing issues, and these were not only matters of translating the labels. Perhaps the buyers of that plant foresaw those issues and wanted to avoid them in the mistaken belief that the Chinese’ ability to memorize complex sequences would save the day. I told my client countless times that it would be cheaper to hire English readers to run the machinery than to make the necessary changes when all things are considered, but that fell on deaf ears.
    I’ve run into the “penny-wise-pound-foolish” Chinese businessman more times than I can count, but, frankly I can’t see the PLA looking to save $10 on new knobs. We’re talking about the defence of the country in a turbulent time and a great deal is at stake. The PLA takes that very seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Dan Hayes says:
    @RJJCDA
    The Dupuys, father and son, wrote a book NUMBERS, PREDICTIONS AND WAR some years ago and attempted, among other things, to evaluate military competence comparatively of the belligerents in WWII. They tried to factor in number of forces, power of weapons, supplys and other things; and arrived at evaluations absent those things which gave advantages/disadvantages in battles to one or the other:

    #1 Germans
    #2 Americans, British, Canadians
    #3 Russians, Japanese, Italians

    Does the Saker have a comment?

    RJJCDA:

    I believe that the German General Staff evaluated the Finns to be the best WWII soldiers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Rich says:
    @FB
    Nothing to do with anti-Americanism...

    Everything to do with pro-facts and actual history...not the smellywood version...

    Sorry I offended you...I just happen to have respect for the truth...

    As for the North 'invading' the south...the facts are much more nuanced...North struck pre-emptively as the US had massed an obvious invasion force on the 38'th parallel...

    You can count Korea and even Vietnam as a 'win' if you want...anyone is free to live in disneyland...

    Speaking of Vietnam...US was kicked out by a small third-world country...remember the rooftop helicopter evacuation of the US embassy in 1975...?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_ImnJrOA0

    US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

    One of the best fighter pilots the US ever had said this...

    'A MiG-21 pilot at Phuc Yen was the best flying job in the world. If I’d been one of them, I’d have got fifty of us!'
     
    ...Robin Olds...flew F4s...

    http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1943jun/13640/

    US lost 445 F4s...

    Viet pilots lost only 154 MiGs total...only 60 -21s...rest were -17s and -19s...

    The US was “kicked out” of Vietnam? Talk about living in Disneyland, but it’s probably not even your fault.The leftist media and academia have been pushing that tale for so many years, the less well read repeat it like a mantra. The US pulled its troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and US POWs were freed. South Vietnam was defeated two years later, in 1975. That’s an historical fact, whether you like it or not. Until the US withdrawal, the North was on its knees, living in tunnels and hiding from American troops.

    As for Korea, buy a globe, and look at Northeastern Asia. You’ll see a line through the 38th parallel. That separates North Korea from South Korea. If the US lost, why does South Korea still exist? The object of the war was to evict the Reds from the South and that objective was achieved. Your opinion that the US was about to invade the North is ridiculous and no serious historian would take it seriously. A Marxist historian might, though, and that’s probably the history you read, right “comrade”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Try a US military historian on for size...comrade Mickey...

    My essay will address these questions and will present the case that the American decision to invade North Korea and carry the ground war beyond the 38th Parallel toward the Chinese border was inconsistent with the political realities of September 1950.
     
    Lt. Colonel Michael Moseley...published 1989 by The National War College...

    www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437546

    As for Vietnam...the US lost...end of story...even says so in Wikipedia...

    Result North Vietnamese victory
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

    And what about the humiliation of losing 10,000 aircraft while downing 150 MiGs in return...

    The US Eighth Army reduced to a 'broken, defeated rabble...'

    Even that helter-skelter run for your life helicopter evacuation...

    I'm sure those Americans bugging out of that embassy thought they 'won' right...?

    But they were sure in a hurry to leave...

    I can't think of any major power in the history of the world that has suffered such lopsided humiliations...time after time...

    Karma can be a bitch you see...invading countries does not always end well...just ask Hitler...or Napoleon...

    Simple fact...a soldier...or even a farmer... will fight for his homeland against a foreign invader...

    What's the motivation for Joe Lunchpail from Podunk, Idaho...?

    What's he thinking when he lands in Korea...or Vietnam...or Iraq...or Afghanistan...?

    What's he defending...?

    His 'right' to tell someone on the other side of the world how to live in his own house...?

    When you are standing up for your own home and farm against a foreign invader...then come back and tell me about it...otherwise stick to your cartoonish notions of military superiority...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @dearieme
    Wasn't the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

    Switzerland has oil?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Cyrano
    Those “glorious” victories of US against Japan were nothing more than boat accidents, extra-proportionally glorified by American propaganda. Chew on this one for a while: US already had the nuclear bombs and Truman still begged Stalin to help him defeat Japan with a massive offensive in Manchuria. Which Stalin did.

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something. I am sending you a link too. Read and weep - at least someone in your country is still capable of publishing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something.

    I think you may be laying it on a bit thick, never-the-less it is certainly true that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and South Sakhalin) is probably the most underrated campaign in all the Second World War. It had as much to do with the Japanese surrender as anything that went on at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, if not more so.

    The Japanese surrendered to the USA on September 2nd, 1945 (the 1,975th anniversary of the battle of Actium), because it’s just a short hop from South Sakhalin to Hokkaido. The Soviets were about to invade the Home Islands (as were we, of course), and thus they (the Japanese, that is) evaded the prospect of northern Japan under Soviet domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    All right, how about this: The whole theory that US used atomic bombs in order to save millions of US and Japanese lives is obviously pure bunkum . They almost convinced the world of their humanism with that one. That whole formula is baloney.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army - instead of terrorizing the civilians - they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    If you ask me for my opinion, I think that it was unfair on the part of USSR to do that. They didn’t owe the US that big of a favor, and Japan didn’t deserve that from USSR.

    In the winter of 1941 when the fate of Moscow was hanging in the balance, and maybe even the fate of the USSR, 500 000 Red Army troops were transferred from the far east – who were there to deal with potential Japanese threat – to Moscow. Those 1/2 Million men pretty match tipped the balance in favor of the defenders of Moscow.

    And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east. I actually feel sorry for the Japanese, they didn’t deserve that. But maybe is all for the better, if the Red Army didn’t defeat the Japanese Army, maybe the Americans would have felt compelled to use even more atomic bombs and more cities and civilians would have suffered the terrible fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the Americans obviously lacked the ability to put together a force to fight the Japanese army and using more atomic bombs would have been the easy way.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. FB says:
    @Rich
    The US was "kicked out" of Vietnam? Talk about living in Disneyland, but it's probably not even your fault.The leftist media and academia have been pushing that tale for so many years, the less well read repeat it like a mantra. The US pulled its troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and US POWs were freed. South Vietnam was defeated two years later, in 1975. That's an historical fact, whether you like it or not. Until the US withdrawal, the North was on its knees, living in tunnels and hiding from American troops.

    As for Korea, buy a globe, and look at Northeastern Asia. You'll see a line through the 38th parallel. That separates North Korea from South Korea. If the US lost, why does South Korea still exist? The object of the war was to evict the Reds from the South and that objective was achieved. Your opinion that the US was about to invade the North is ridiculous and no serious historian would take it seriously. A Marxist historian might, though, and that's probably the history you read, right "comrade"?

    Try a US military historian on for size…comrade Mickey…

    My essay will address these questions and will present the case that the American decision to invade North Korea and carry the ground war beyond the 38th Parallel toward the Chinese border was inconsistent with the political realities of September 1950.

    Lt. Colonel Michael Moseley…published 1989 by The National War College…

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437546

    As for Vietnam…the US lost…end of story…even says so in Wikipedia…

    Result North Vietnamese victory

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

    And what about the humiliation of losing 10,000 aircraft while downing 150 MiGs in return…

    The US Eighth Army reduced to a ‘broken, defeated rabble…’

    Even that helter-skelter run for your life helicopter evacuation…

    I’m sure those Americans bugging out of that embassy thought they ‘won’ right…?

    But they were sure in a hurry to leave…

    I can’t think of any major power in the history of the world that has suffered such lopsided humiliations…time after time…

    Karma can be a bitch you see…invading countries does not always end well…just ask Hitler…or Napoleon…

    Simple fact…a soldier…or even a farmer… will fight for his homeland against a foreign invader…

    What’s the motivation for Joe Lunchpail from Podunk, Idaho…?

    What’s he thinking when he lands in Korea…or Vietnam…or Iraq…or Afghanistan…?

    What’s he defending…?

    His ‘right’ to tell someone on the other side of the world how to live in his own house…?

    When you are standing up for your own home and farm against a foreign invader…then come back and tell me about it…otherwise stick to your cartoonish notions of military superiority…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Diversity Heretic
    although I agree with you generally about the relative size and scale of the Red Army and the United States Army contribution to victory over the German WWII military, Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted. Still and all, Patton's achievement in pulling out of one attack, turning 90° and attacking along another axis, all in bad winter weather, was a very skillfully conducted manoever.

    By the way, Hasso von Manteuffel, who commanded the 5th Panzer Army in the Ardennes attack, was no slouch as a soldier either.

    Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted.

    Might argue? That is a funny way to put it. Look at the number of Volksgrenadier Division, as an example during Ardennes and that will give you a good clue. Most importantly, take a look at actions of Gerow’s V Corps, heroism of 2nd and 99th Divisions which faced the worst, and in general look at actions of Hodges 1st Army and, yes, able command by Montgomery who was given command of the 1st and 9th (taken from under Bradley’s command, which was an issue). The main thrust was on the Northern Face of Bulge and here is what people who study military history not from Hollywood know damn well:

    Here are some notes.

    In 2011, the site of US Army’s 99th Infantry Division Association published an essay titled “Explaining the Silence Surrounding Elsenborne Ridge Battle” where it referred to a booklet by a Belgian historian Leon Nyssen who, far from adhering to Patton and Bastogne mandatory worship, made a conclusion which was looking into anyone’s face once the map of Ardennes Battle was opened. As Nyssen noted:

    “Many different battles were fought all through the Battle of the Bulge, also called the Ardennes Battle. The Elsenborn battle has a specific place in history. In fact, it is known as the area where the German attack was held in check from the second day. Any action following this battle was nothing else but an inevitable consequence of this fiasco. This did not mean that the skirmishes, which occurred during the following weeks and pitted the opposing forces, were not important or were lacking rage. Far from it. It is just as unreasonable to maintain that the American success during the Elsenborn battle was enough to assure the Allies’ victory during this lengthy and bloody Ardennes campaign. However, this battle definitely ruined Hitler’s hopes of crushing the western front”. [34]

    The truth, however, about why a crucial event and the crucial sector of the Ardennes Battle found so little resonance in American historiography was succinctly observed by Eliot Wager:

    “Just as one cannot mention Waterloo without thinking about Cambronne’s famous word, it is impossible to mention Bastogne without having someone adding “Nuts!” This “historical” word was uttered by Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe. The two are inseparable. There is not a book written concerning the Battle of Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) that does not devote many paragraphs, if not pages, to this episode. Neither generals Clarke nor Hasbrouck in Saint Vith, nor Colonels Butler or O’Brien in Montjoie (Monschau), nor Generals Lauer or Robertson at Elsenborn and Col. Daniel at the Butgenbach estate had the free time to pronounce a historical word. If they ever did there were no war correspondents there to capture and relay them. They all did their duty with the goal of being efficient. They didn’t try becoming popular by carrying revolvers decorated with mother-of-pearl grips, wearing defused hand grenades hooked up to their shoulder straps or go to the front line to take potshots at the enemy. This usually provoked the enemy to retaliate and caused unjustified losses to the GIs.”. One should also mention the rivalry between General George S. Patton, Commander, 3rd U.S. Army and General Hodges, Commander, 1st U.S. Army. Each wanted to claim that he was the one who stopped the Germans. General Patton had a knack of getting the press to talk or to write about him. General Hodges was not concerned about his reputation. This created an atmosphere concerning the performance of his men as a reflection of his own less flamboyant management style. However, it is General Hodges who should have been given credit for defeating the Germans.

    Just FYI. But even that is a separate topic, since has to deal with momentum. But this observation of yours is spot on:

    and that the German war effort was already severely depleted

    And no, Patton’s performance in Lorraine and in Ardennes is rather underwhelming, even against forces he encountered there.

    But that is what Atkinson states, read attentively, since it is one of those admissions which matter:

    As Rick Atkinson admitted in 1995, he could see in Patton: “the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would costs the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. Summing up the achievements of his troops in crushing the German counterattack of December 1944, Patton with pardonable pride claims to have “moved farther and faster and engaged more divisions in less time than any other army in the history of the United States–possibly in the history of the world… No country can stand against such an Army.” These memoirs are valuable not least in showing, however unwittingly, that a disastrous presumption of invincibility took root in the ranks of officers who led the American military after World War II.”

    What was 3rd Army’s actual performance even against exhausted Wehrmacht is expertly reviewed here: Advance and Destroy. Patton as Commander in the Bulge. John Nelson Rickard. The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly Publisher for the Commonwealth. 2011. Here is quote:
    “there was nothing brilliant about his (Patton’s) performance in the Bulge”.(c) Once one begins to view his campaign in Lorraine–everything becomes clear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Rich
    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There's six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn't mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.

    So, operating with facts, numbers and, get this, reputable American historical sources is anti-American now? Oh my. Live and learn.

    The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)

    LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Rich says:

    Well, I just finished reading the essay on Korea that you cited, perhaps you should read it yourself. It says nothing about US plans of invading N Korea prior to the North’s invasion and references Truman’s belief that the war should be limited to freeing the South. Because, in the rush of a fairly quick victory over the forces of the North, the US and its allies took a chance on perhaps reuniting the peninsula doesn’t change the fact that the South was freed and the original objective met. You seem to be confusing victory with something else. You keep repeating “8th Army” like its some kind of chant. Early in the war, the 8th was caught unaware by the cowardly, surprise attack of the Reds and suffered losses. This is not uncommon in war. Shortly after that, US forces landed and beat the Norks back.

    Is Wikipedia your Pope? Because some kid writes there what he has heard repeated over and over doesn’t make it true. Accept the historical fact that South Vietnam was free as long as US combat troops were in country and that it took a full two years for the Reds to defeat the South after the US withdrew. These are historical facts. A couple of left wing writers and a few television shows doesn’t change that fact.

    As much as you keep telling yourself the US was “humiliated” here we sit in a world dominated by US power and culture. You’ll never be able to accept it, but observable reality shows you’re wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Rich, I've been following your comments and it appears that you have neglected to add the precise distance of just how far you are able to urinate. I'm sure it's quite impressive though and way further than anyone else. It's a very easy error to make but this simple omission would seem to be costing you the victory that you seek in this debate. Do what you must.
    , @jilles dykstra
    GB was was against interference in a civil war:
    Peter Lowe, The Origins of the Korean War, London, 1986
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Cyrano says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something.
     
    I think you may be laying it on a bit thick, never-the-less it is certainly true that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and South Sakhalin) is probably the most underrated campaign in all the Second World War. It had as much to do with the Japanese surrender as anything that went on at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, if not more so.

    The Japanese surrendered to the USA on September 2nd, 1945 (the 1,975th anniversary of the battle of Actium), because it's just a short hop from South Sakhalin to Hokkaido. The Soviets were about to invade the Home Islands (as were we, of course), and thus they (the Japanese, that is) evaded the prospect of northern Japan under Soviet domination.

    All right, how about this: The whole theory that US used atomic bombs in order to save millions of US and Japanese lives is obviously pure bunkum . They almost convinced the world of their humanism with that one. That whole formula is baloney.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army – instead of terrorizing the civilians – they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    If you ask me for my opinion, I think that it was unfair on the part of USSR to do that. They didn’t owe the US that big of a favor, and Japan didn’t deserve that from USSR.

    In the winter of 1941 when the fate of Moscow was hanging in the balance, and maybe even the fate of the USSR, 500 000 Red Army troops were transferred from the far east – who were there to deal with potential Japanese threat – to Moscow. Those 1/2 Million men pretty match tipped the balance in favor of the defenders of Moscow.

    And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east. I actually feel sorry for the Japanese, they didn’t deserve that. But maybe is all for the better, if the Red Army didn’t defeat the Japanese Army, maybe the Americans would have felt compelled to use even more atomic bombs and more cities and civilians would have suffered the terrible fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the Americans obviously lacked the ability to put together a force to fight the Japanese army and using more atomic bombs would have been the easy way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east}

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don't give a promise to your enemy.

    SU had a deep penetration super spy in Japan: Richard Sorge.
    Sorge found out that Japan had decided not to invade USSR, for whatever reason.
    For once Stalin believed his spy. (......maybe he had confirmation from other sources in this case).
    Sorge had previously informed Moscow that Hitler was going to invade SU, but he did not know the date. Stalin did not believe him.

    The rest is correct: when Stalin was sure that Japan would not invade from the East, he transferred 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia to the Moscow front. And these troops were tough Siberian men, well acclimated to fight in very cold weather.
    They arrived just in time. Thank God.
    , @jilles dykstra
    In the sixties there was a congressional investigation about the why of two atomic bombs on Japan.
    Oppenheimer testified that they wanted to see what the bombs did in reality.
    Through Stalin Japan already had offered capitalation in Januari 1945.
    Much later Stalin told Truman, and asked what he should do.
    Truman: nothing.
    , @MarkinLA
    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army – instead of terrorizing the civilians – they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    The purpose of fighting a war is to get some countries government to capitulate to your demands. The US could have simply used the US Navy and Army Air Force to strangle the Japanese home islands and there was NOTHING that Japanese Army in Manchuria could do about it.

    Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost. If FDR had realize that he would have total naval and air superiority over Japan and decided to starve them out he could have chosen to do so but the US would have had to stay in a state of war for 5 years bombing cities and destroying farmland while millions of Japanese starved to death waiting for their government to realize the hopelessness of their situation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. polskijoe says:

    I think the US still has a small advantage in conventional.

    My guess:
    Russian army is stronger
    US airforce/navy is stronger.

    Nukes: depends on who is faster, and we have self assured destruction (or whatever the term is).

    What is also important, is prototypes, secret programs. Im sure both countries have.
    US has money advantage (although also debt).

    Other important things: advantage in space, biological, chemical and maybe weather war options.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    US airforce/navy is stronger.
     
    US Navy, despite all its problems, is the strongest Navy in the world and by far. But it also has a fatal flaw. This, to a significant degree applies to US Air Force too. The issue with acquisition in US military is, indeed, clear and present danger to the US and it is only the fact of US superb geographic position that this gigantic flaw hasn't been demonstrated even more dramatically. This is how Colonel Davies was forced to admit it:

    The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe.
     
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-sobering-truth-about-the-pentagons-acquisition-failures-15138

    The problem is deeper than some collection of technologies, the problem is cultural and it cannot be changed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Avery says:
    @Cyrano
    All right, how about this: The whole theory that US used atomic bombs in order to save millions of US and Japanese lives is obviously pure bunkum . They almost convinced the world of their humanism with that one. That whole formula is baloney.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army - instead of terrorizing the civilians - they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    If you ask me for my opinion, I think that it was unfair on the part of USSR to do that. They didn’t owe the US that big of a favor, and Japan didn’t deserve that from USSR.

    In the winter of 1941 when the fate of Moscow was hanging in the balance, and maybe even the fate of the USSR, 500 000 Red Army troops were transferred from the far east – who were there to deal with potential Japanese threat – to Moscow. Those 1/2 Million men pretty match tipped the balance in favor of the defenders of Moscow.

    And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east. I actually feel sorry for the Japanese, they didn’t deserve that. But maybe is all for the better, if the Red Army didn’t defeat the Japanese Army, maybe the Americans would have felt compelled to use even more atomic bombs and more cities and civilians would have suffered the terrible fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the Americans obviously lacked the ability to put together a force to fight the Japanese army and using more atomic bombs would have been the easy way.

    {And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east}

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don’t give a promise to your enemy.

    SU had a deep penetration super spy in Japan: Richard Sorge.
    Sorge found out that Japan had decided not to invade USSR, for whatever reason.
    For once Stalin believed his spy. (……maybe he had confirmation from other sources in this case).
    Sorge had previously informed Moscow that Hitler was going to invade SU, but he did not know the date. Stalin did not believe him.

    The rest is correct: when Stalin was sure that Japan would not invade from the East, he transferred 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia to the Moscow front. And these troops were tough Siberian men, well acclimated to fight in very cold weather.
    They arrived just in time. Thank God.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don’t give a promise to your enemy.
     
    Actually there was...The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact...signed in 1941...and honored by both sides...

    For instance when B29 bomber crews had to make emergency landings in Russia's far east...Stalin didn't let the air crews go...even though US was an ally...

    He made sure to keep them for a few months then secretly spirited them through to Iran, which was on Russia's Caucasus border...and which was jointly run by Russia and US during the war...

    Cyrano is correct that the Japs didn't want to tangle with Uncle Joe after they were quickly rolled back in their attempts to invade Soviet territory in the far east...

    About the lengthy comments re Battle of Bulge [Ardennes]...

    Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees...Battle of Kursk dwarfed the Battle of the Bulge in both size and importance...

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/wwiis-greatest-battle-how-kursk-changed-the-war

    '...After their defeat at Kursk, the Germans never again looked like they might win the war on the Eastern Front, the theater that held the key to overall victory in the war...'
     
    , @Cyrano
    Your version of the events is more factually accurate than mine. Mine is only a speculation. I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy and that he would make such a huge gamble based on that - leaving the far east exposed.

    I think that he must have had some other assurances from other sources. I know what you are saying, that Sorge established his credentials by being correct about the German attack, so Stalin trusted him the second time around about his intel of the Japanese intentions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. pyrrhus says:
    @Randal

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans
     
    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th - the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
     
    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    A key fact not mentioned by the Saker…The US armed forces are rotten to the core due to feminism, diversity signaling, and the resulting complete lack of standards at West Point, Annapolis and in combat areas. Women are being allowed into combat posts, as officers, without meeting the physical or mental standards, when every army in the world has learned that they create nothing but strife and diversions, and many of them get pregnant. There is also the fact that our multi-billion dollar carriers are nothing but sitting ducks for missiles, torpedoes, and energy weapons, and become more moribund every day as technology advances…The US conventional forces are a paper tiger who can defeat 3d world armies at a fantastic cost, but can’t defeat guys on donkeys in Afghanistan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @FB
    Ha...I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this...

    I have an interesting mind-question...how many Aermicans [or in the wider West for that matter] actually know that this episode of WW2 even happened...?

    I say this because I only became aware of the existence of the Soviet-Japanese war only very recently...and quite by accident...

    And then I began feeling angry...that such an important piece of history has been so deliberately concealed from The People...

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information...anyone interested can start with wikipedia...and follow some of the references...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

    A good doc on youtube is here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuMDG2TvcY

    But I like this one even better...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjygZML_X-o

    And here is a 200 page treatise from US Army historian David Glantz...[which I'm still plowing through...]

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    Some of the interesting things I learned...

    1. The Japs were deathly afraid of the Soviets and Stalin...not surprising having seen the mighty German war machine completely destroyed by same...

    2..The Russians upon entering Manchuria were quite amused by the Japanese weapons...their tanks with 50 mm guns were pea shooters compared to German equipment...their landmines were laughably simple...

    3. Russian generals couldn't comprehend how the US had so much trouble and took so much time to subdue the Japs in Iwo Jima etc...

    The Russian war machine was a battle-hardened monster that just ate up the Japs in a couple of quick bites across the vast territory of Manchuria...same with the Kurils, Sakhalin and Hokkaido was next on the list...

    One gets the impression that if Stalin had just said 'no thanks' the US might still be fighting the Japs to this day...

    The Japs made a probing attack into Outer Mongolia in 1939 and the Red Army knocked the snot out of them and sent them packing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

    That was one reason they decided to attack the USA rather than the USSR in 1941.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Andrei Martyanov

    Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted.
     
    Might argue? That is a funny way to put it. Look at the number of Volksgrenadier Division, as an example during Ardennes and that will give you a good clue. Most importantly, take a look at actions of Gerow's V Corps, heroism of 2nd and 99th Divisions which faced the worst, and in general look at actions of Hodges 1st Army and, yes, able command by Montgomery who was given command of the 1st and 9th (taken from under Bradley's command, which was an issue). The main thrust was on the Northern Face of Bulge and here is what people who study military history not from Hollywood know damn well:

    Here are some notes.

    In 2011, the site of US Army's 99th Infantry Division Association published an essay titled "Explaining the Silence Surrounding Elsenborne Ridge Battle" where it referred to a booklet by a Belgian historian Leon Nyssen who, far from adhering to Patton and Bastogne mandatory worship, made a conclusion which was looking into anyone's face once the map of Ardennes Battle was opened. As Nyssen noted:

    "Many different battles were fought all through the Battle of the Bulge, also called the Ardennes Battle. The Elsenborn battle has a specific place in history. In fact, it is known as the area where the German attack was held in check from the second day. Any action following this battle was nothing else but an inevitable consequence of this fiasco. This did not mean that the skirmishes, which occurred during the following weeks and pitted the opposing forces, were not important or were lacking rage. Far from it. It is just as unreasonable to maintain that the American success during the Elsenborn battle was enough to assure the Allies’ victory during this lengthy and bloody Ardennes campaign. However, this battle definitely ruined Hitler’s hopes of crushing the western front". [34]

    The truth, however, about why a crucial event and the crucial sector of the Ardennes Battle found so little resonance in American historiography was succinctly observed by Eliot Wager:

    "Just as one cannot mention Waterloo without thinking about Cambronne’s famous word, it is impossible to mention Bastogne without having someone adding “Nuts!” This “historical” word was uttered by Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe. The two are inseparable. There is not a book written concerning the Battle of Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) that does not devote many paragraphs, if not pages, to this episode. Neither generals Clarke nor Hasbrouck in Saint Vith, nor Colonels Butler or O’Brien in Montjoie (Monschau), nor Generals Lauer or Robertson at Elsenborn and Col. Daniel at the Butgenbach estate had the free time to pronounce a historical word. If they ever did there were no war correspondents there to capture and relay them. They all did their duty with the goal of being efficient. They didn’t try becoming popular by carrying revolvers decorated with mother-of-pearl grips, wearing defused hand grenades hooked up to their shoulder straps or go to the front line to take potshots at the enemy. This usually provoked the enemy to retaliate and caused unjustified losses to the GIs.". One should also mention the rivalry between General George S. Patton, Commander, 3rd U.S. Army and General Hodges, Commander, 1st U.S. Army. Each wanted to claim that he was the one who stopped the Germans. General Patton had a knack of getting the press to talk or to write about him. General Hodges was not concerned about his reputation. This created an atmosphere concerning the performance of his men as a reflection of his own less flamboyant management style. However, it is General Hodges who should have been given credit for defeating the Germans.

     

    Just FYI. But even that is a separate topic, since has to deal with momentum. But this observation of yours is spot on:

    and that the German war effort was already severely depleted
     
    And no, Patton's performance in Lorraine and in Ardennes is rather underwhelming, even against forces he encountered there.

    But that is what Atkinson states, read attentively, since it is one of those admissions which matter:

    As Rick Atkinson admitted in 1995, he could see in Patton: "the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would costs the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. Summing up the achievements of his troops in crushing the German counterattack of December 1944, Patton with pardonable pride claims to have "moved farther and faster and engaged more divisions in less time than any other army in the history of the United States--possibly in the history of the world... No country can stand against such an Army." These memoirs are valuable not least in showing, however unwittingly, that a disastrous presumption of invincibility took root in the ranks of officers who led the American military after World War II."
     
    What was 3rd Army's actual performance even against exhausted Wehrmacht is expertly reviewed here: Advance and Destroy. Patton as Commander in the Bulge. John Nelson Rickard. The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly Publisher for the Commonwealth. 2011. Here is quote:
    "there was nothing brilliant about his (Patton's) performance in the Bulge".(c) Once one begins to view his campaign in Lorraine--everything becomes clear.

    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?
     
    Nothing special, really. He was a division commander at Kursk, he certainly was not a dummy and was an experienced officer, but his emergence to the operational top of Wehrmacht coincided with this very Wehrmacht's decline due to fighting the Red Army.

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.
     
    True, movie Patton (and George C. Scott is one of my favorite actors of all time) is one of the greatest Hollywood fairy tales ever made--insulting in its misrepresentation of the real war and the role of Commanders in it. Patton himself was the greatest PR general in military history. His delusion is excellently demonstrated in his conversation with US Army Undersecretary Patterson in May 1945--his monologue is not a monologue of mentally adequate person. Somehow Eisenhower never merited a good movie about himself (with the exception of a second-tier unnoticed picture with Tom Selleck), nor Omar Bradly has any movie about himself, but he certainly deserved one. Nor will Americans ever see movie about Gerow's V Corps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Rich
    Well, I just finished reading the essay on Korea that you cited, perhaps you should read it yourself. It says nothing about US plans of invading N Korea prior to the North's invasion and references Truman's belief that the war should be limited to freeing the South. Because, in the rush of a fairly quick victory over the forces of the North, the US and its allies took a chance on perhaps reuniting the peninsula doesn't change the fact that the South was freed and the original objective met. You seem to be confusing victory with something else. You keep repeating "8th Army" like its some kind of chant. Early in the war, the 8th was caught unaware by the cowardly, surprise attack of the Reds and suffered losses. This is not uncommon in war. Shortly after that, US forces landed and beat the Norks back.

    Is Wikipedia your Pope? Because some kid writes there what he has heard repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Accept the historical fact that South Vietnam was free as long as US combat troops were in country and that it took a full two years for the Reds to defeat the South after the US withdrew. These are historical facts. A couple of left wing writers and a few television shows doesn't change that fact.

    As much as you keep telling yourself the US was "humiliated" here we sit in a world dominated by US power and culture. You'll never be able to accept it, but observable reality shows you're wrong.

    Rich, I’ve been following your comments and it appears that you have neglected to add the precise distance of just how far you are able to urinate. I’m sure it’s quite impressive though and way further than anyone else. It’s a very easy error to make but this simple omission would seem to be costing you the victory that you seek in this debate. Do what you must.

    Read More
    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Rich
    Wow. Is that really what you think about? Man, that's disgusting. You should get a hobby or something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Vidi says:
    @ThreeCranes
    I think, Saker, that you mistake the role of "war" in America today. The point is not to win. If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let 'er rip.

    As in so many things, the progressive Germans showed the way. We learned from Hitler that the only way to avoid depressions, maintain full employment while giving bankers a free hand, stimulate research and development while creating steady demand to prop up domestic industry is through ever increasing military expenditures. As was demonstrated during the Roosevelt administration and in Japan today government spending on infrastructure just won't provide enough demand to keep things ticking along smoothly. The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism.

    Americans have long had a reputation for being overoptimistic; some say, naively so. They consistently overestimate the power of positive thinking. This pragmatism works until one day, it doesn't.

    But don't underestimate America, Saker. When the dross has burned off, when today's Washington D.C. posers are ground to dust, there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today. But under the right conditions they will emerge. America, like Russia, was a wild frontier country not too long ago. Those were some hard-bitten men who swept the Indians off the plains, cleared timber, plowed soil with mules, hewed logs and fished offshore in small boats. Their grandsons live today.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Terry%27sTexasRangers.jpg

    http://texashillcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/texas-rangers-3-680x390.jpg

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip.

    How would you transport that army? Even if you had enough transports, would they survive the submarines, sea mines, and missiles near the enemy’s shores?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Correct
    WWII was won by mass USA production and Russian blood.
    The west did not have the V1, the V2, the German Tiger tank was far better than any other, and the German hydrogen bomb was nearly ready.
    I refused to believe the hydrogen bomb until I read the book.
    The hydrogen was ignited by conventional explosives.
    Two converted planes were in Prague to carry the bomb east, it was a sphere a metre in diameter.
    This bomb may explain why Hitler fought to the last moment.
    Just imagine a few V2′s with this bomb, each one obliterating a few square kilometres of London.
    Rudel, Germany’s best pilot, already in 1956 wrote about the atomic bomb he should fly to the Ural hydro electric installations, to stop USSR tank production.
    Germany also had TV guided missiles.

    At present there is the story about a USA very modern warship in the Black Sea, unable to respond to a very low and ver near fly by by an unarmed Russian plane, because this plane disabled all the ship’s systems.
    Then we have MH370, lost somewhere in the direction of the Antarctic.
    The USA is on top of my suspect list, media never mentioned this, but on the plane were two groups of Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible to radar.
    Then there is the asserted Chinese quantum computer, installed in a satellite, the emissions can not be heard or decrypted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Germany was neither remotely close to an atomic bomb nor a hydrogen bomb. They were researching in the wrong direction. Japan on the other hand actually tested a very feeble A-bomb between the drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    , @MarkinLA
    I don't think you can get the temperatures or pressures required to ignite a hydrogen bomb. If you could there would have been plenty of clandestine programs in places like Iraq since you would not need centrifuges or reactors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Forgot the story about a USA missile fired in Spain towards Syria, intercepted above the E Mediterranean.
    Something indeed fell, USA and Israel declared an excercise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @ThreeCranes
    "THAT’S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really?"

    Wiki says; "During the war [WW2], over 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces, with 405,399 killed in action and 671,278 wounded..."

    In 1940 population of USA was 132,000,000. Today more than twice that.

    I'm not saying that I'm a kick-ass dude, but I've worked with some out West. Not all American males are fags. The countryside is loaded with guys who can shoot, hunt, fish, who love the outdoors. If your only impression of American males comes from acquaintance with coastal city boys, then you are likely to be sternly re-educated at some point in your life.

    Fair enough takes. I carry concealed, a kick-ass city or country boy might be re-edumicated about messing with 60 year-old guys. So far however, I never let anyone have it that didn’t have it coming. Again, your takes are fair and cogent. Our kick-ass city and country boys were the norm back when I went in. Nerds were about the same proportion in the population as obese girls, that is, there were very, very few.. The rest of us got pounded playing sports, organized or sandlots. Which led to fights, handshakes and the learning of some honor. From High School, you were college material or you weren’t, sometimes you were, but had no money and there were no loans. Those who were not college material, well that saying went, “The world needs ditch diggers too”. The boys learned a trade, went into the military. The girls who were not college material stayed slender and got married and had babies. The girls who were became teachers and frequently found their husband at college. Now look, I don’t say out in the hinterlands, or even in the coastal cities there aren’t kick-ass boys, but it certainly isn’t encouraged or even tolerated. But if you think the same proportions of kick-ass boys out there exist to the tune of 5, 10, 20 million in THIS country, forget it. We couldn’t raise the same standing army and Navy we did back in the teens and 40s, I cannot fathom it. Aside from the physical characteristics of the inductees a boot camp would have to deal with, there isn’t the same spirit in kids.

    For most, Mom is the one that left Junior fatherless, Apple Pie is from a wax paper wrapper with Hostess printed on it and Chevrolet is a $22,000-dollar bent shit can with three shots of clear coat made in cooperation with Kia of China. That is not an America that builds morale. To top it off, the education of our children toward heritage and war and sacrifice has changed, you’d have to re-program the kids in many ways. Just ain’t happening. And then, there are the girls, the first ones that would have to be reformed for wartime, the ones we have, no good. For starters…Naw, it’s over..

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Good comment, both yours and JBW's below. I won't argue the point further. Probably moot anyway. I realize now how silly my original comment was. The Saker was talking about "hardware" and here I am talking about character, heart and guts. Anyway, the wars of tomorrow will be fought by the keyboard-pecking geek in the dark trailer a million miles from the battlefield so what do personal qualities of courage have to do with it anyway? They're become as "irrelevantized" as have the practice of Homeric heroes calling out their adversary before battle and launching into a speech extolling their family's glorious martial patrimony and history of bravery in past battles. The personal element is becoming ever smaller on the battlefield.

    First world war was so abhorred because of the human waste. A young man arrives at the front. An artillery shell lands in his proximity. He is blown to bits. He never even saw the enemy much less engaged him. It was a random lottery. What's the point? When random death rules, the mind boggles. The only way to cope is to adopt an equally insane mindset. That's why war veterans are so mind-f*cked.

    Civil society requires that we have faith in the Justice of the system. War mocks human notions of justice or at any rate, has done so ever since the invention of--literally--slings and arrows, projectiles whose final destination is not wholly controlled by the source. Look at the HMS Hood, or King Harald with the arrow through the eye. Paris, who stole Helen was an archer at Troy. This association was made to demonstrate his treachery and cowardliness. He not only stole his host's wife while his host was away, but refused to fight man to man, striking from a safe distance via the bow and arrow.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Cyrano
    All right, how about this: The whole theory that US used atomic bombs in order to save millions of US and Japanese lives is obviously pure bunkum . They almost convinced the world of their humanism with that one. That whole formula is baloney.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army - instead of terrorizing the civilians - they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    If you ask me for my opinion, I think that it was unfair on the part of USSR to do that. They didn’t owe the US that big of a favor, and Japan didn’t deserve that from USSR.

    In the winter of 1941 when the fate of Moscow was hanging in the balance, and maybe even the fate of the USSR, 500 000 Red Army troops were transferred from the far east – who were there to deal with potential Japanese threat – to Moscow. Those 1/2 Million men pretty match tipped the balance in favor of the defenders of Moscow.

    And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east. I actually feel sorry for the Japanese, they didn’t deserve that. But maybe is all for the better, if the Red Army didn’t defeat the Japanese Army, maybe the Americans would have felt compelled to use even more atomic bombs and more cities and civilians would have suffered the terrible fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the Americans obviously lacked the ability to put together a force to fight the Japanese army and using more atomic bombs would have been the easy way.

    In the sixties there was a congressional investigation about the why of two atomic bombs on Japan.
    Oppenheimer testified that they wanted to see what the bombs did in reality.
    Through Stalin Japan already had offered capitalation in Januari 1945.
    Much later Stalin told Truman, and asked what he should do.
    Truman: nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Japan was offering conditional surrender. When FDR blundered and made his unconditional surrender demand, Truman probably couldn't accept less. The US for the sake of keeping the peace in post-war Japan pretty much gave Japan what they were asking for anyway - keeping the Emperor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Rich
    Well, I just finished reading the essay on Korea that you cited, perhaps you should read it yourself. It says nothing about US plans of invading N Korea prior to the North's invasion and references Truman's belief that the war should be limited to freeing the South. Because, in the rush of a fairly quick victory over the forces of the North, the US and its allies took a chance on perhaps reuniting the peninsula doesn't change the fact that the South was freed and the original objective met. You seem to be confusing victory with something else. You keep repeating "8th Army" like its some kind of chant. Early in the war, the 8th was caught unaware by the cowardly, surprise attack of the Reds and suffered losses. This is not uncommon in war. Shortly after that, US forces landed and beat the Norks back.

    Is Wikipedia your Pope? Because some kid writes there what he has heard repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Accept the historical fact that South Vietnam was free as long as US combat troops were in country and that it took a full two years for the Reds to defeat the South after the US withdrew. These are historical facts. A couple of left wing writers and a few television shows doesn't change that fact.

    As much as you keep telling yourself the US was "humiliated" here we sit in a world dominated by US power and culture. You'll never be able to accept it, but observable reality shows you're wrong.

    GB was was against interference in a civil war:
    Peter Lowe, The Origins of the Korean War, London, 1986

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Rich
    Anti-Americanism seems rampant with a lot of you fellows, so much that you're really unable to see the facts. The fact is that the communist N Koreans invaded the South in the hope of conquering and annexing it. The Americans and their allies fought a bloody conflict which, in the end, resulted in the North being driven out of the South. It's true, the Allied forces did, at one point, occupy most of the North, and had Truman followed MacArthur's advice, all Koreans, as well as the Chinese, would be free today. But the fact is, the Norks were prevented from conquering the South and were driven back behind the 38th parallel. That's a win.

    That I criticise the USA is just based on facts.
    I do not criticise the overwhelming majority of the USA people, they’re just victims of the two or three % richest USA citizens who run the country.
    Am reading Howard Zinn, the facts are not new to me, but to see them listed one after another, sad reading.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Stop reading Zinn. Now. He is a biased, Marxist historian who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint. By the time you finish that ridiculous book, based on your already anti-American leanings, you're going to hate the USA. No nation is perfect, but the US has tried, in most cases, to be a liberating force in the world. We didn't turn Japan and Germany into agrarian territories like some wanted. We didn't authorize the rape of every female from 8 to 80 like the Soviets did. There are more American Indians alive today, with full voting rights, than there were when Jamestown was founded. We didn't send our boys to Korea and Nam to conquer and enslave the people, we were there to protect them from the murderous Reds. If the dopes in Al Quaeda hadn't stupidly attacked the US, we wouldn't be in the Afghan or Iraq, either. The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Christos T. says: • Website
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. @Diversity Heretic
    Always enjoy your posts. Like you, I see no way the United States could field a mass army in the present cultural/political conditions. (If I had a son, I would do everything in my power to help him dodge the draft, and I sought to go to West Point in the 1970s--a mark of how attitudes have changed!)

    As for the B-61s, the Nuclear Matters Handbook has a surprisingly candid statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration that it is increasingly difficult to certify the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile. The United States has not tested any nuclear weapon or device since the early 1990s, even to the extent of putting it in a hole and seeing if it will still go off, and some of the secondaries in the weapons were last tested at full yield in the 1960s. None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s--approaching or already at 30 years, and the estimates of their performance in their present state is mostly theoretical.

    Other nuclear powers (except North Korea) haven't tested either, so they may have similar problems. It may be, however, that they designed weapons with long service lives in mind, rather than cutting-edge technology intended to achieve the best yield-to-weight ratio.

    As for the B-61,

    None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s–approaching or already at 30 years

    We used to load those damned things two or three to an A-6 East of the Italian heel in the Med where they would become part of the nuclear triad. This was mid-70s. The A-6 Es, would, in war, be responsible for a one-way trip north to certain Soviet shipyards where they would reduce said shipyards to a radioactive puddle. For practice carrying them and for us loading them, they would fly and drill with Fabulous Fakes, Whites with Blue stripes, the real ones were all-silver. All this is utterly unclassified these days, by the way. We knew nothing of the innards and special folks would be along to dial-the-yield, that was none of the loaders’ business. But since you mention dependability, the electronics packages built into fakes and real weapons alike, weren’t terribly dependable. We’d have a hell of a time getting three ready to fly out of six. Understand, the planes are pulling 6 and 7 and more G’s, then coming back home with them, they treated to a carrier landing’s return and so for us, they weren’t so dependable, just for wire checks and their ability to talk to the airplane’s electronics, they were a hassle to keep going. The physics within? Damned if I know, none of my business, even as I loaded them. In a war? Would they actually go “Pop”? Who knows?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Thanks for your comment. Always enjoy hearing from someone with real world experience. The increasing uncertainty appears to be the radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go "Pop," but maybe not "ka-boom."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @ThreeCranes
    I think, Saker, that you mistake the role of "war" in America today. The point is not to win. If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let 'er rip.

    As in so many things, the progressive Germans showed the way. We learned from Hitler that the only way to avoid depressions, maintain full employment while giving bankers a free hand, stimulate research and development while creating steady demand to prop up domestic industry is through ever increasing military expenditures. As was demonstrated during the Roosevelt administration and in Japan today government spending on infrastructure just won't provide enough demand to keep things ticking along smoothly. The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism.

    Americans have long had a reputation for being overoptimistic; some say, naively so. They consistently overestimate the power of positive thinking. This pragmatism works until one day, it doesn't.

    But don't underestimate America, Saker. When the dross has burned off, when today's Washington D.C. posers are ground to dust, there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today. But under the right conditions they will emerge. America, like Russia, was a wild frontier country not too long ago. Those were some hard-bitten men who swept the Indians off the plains, cleared timber, plowed soil with mules, hewed logs and fished offshore in small boats. Their grandsons live today.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Terry%27sTexasRangers.jpg

    http://texashillcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/texas-rangers-3-680x390.jpg

    ” there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today”

    Umm, the USA is no longer the nation it used to be in terms of manpower. You are showing pictures from when the bulk of the population was rural, before TV and computer games. Low incidence of diabetes, obesity, etc etc. Modern Americans are not the same. If you go to the rural areas they have major drug abuse problems that disqualify a lot of the potential recruits from enlisting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @dearieme
    Wasn't the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

    Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

    Aside from the WMD nonsense, Cheney and Rummy were going to find the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons of Baghdad and send a few copies of our Declaration of Independence and let them build a 2nd America. That didn’t work out HERE so well, given the Civil War, but that’s another story. Fact is, after we pulled Saddam out of his hole we ought to have re-instated him and left. Or handed him over and THEN left. Either way, here they are, 15 years later, still killing each other and us when they get the opportunity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. uslabor says:
    @anony-mouse
    The original Cassandra of Greek mythology was young, female and beautiful. Not quite PCR.

    As for seeing the future next year we can all celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Apocalypsism.:

    http://endoftheworldsurvivalguide.com/DrPaulCraigRoberts.html

    Of course if the end is near there's only one truly American thing to sing:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzJbAZ4dwc

    You certainly scored points by setting us straight about Cassandra -good for you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. BB753 says:
    @Rich
    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There's six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn't mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

    “a victory doesn’t mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.”

    To the contrary, victory means precisely this, and that’s the only way to actually win a war in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Which is why we’re always winning battles but losing wars.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Ondrej says:
    @Erebus

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.
     
    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is "Yes, with Chinese characteristics". In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they'll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35's systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can't be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a "cookbook" understanding of the machine. It's a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he's gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can't be thinking in Chinese. He's gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There's also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to "get it" as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money's worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an "all Russian" program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.


    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I'm pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine. It’s a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he’s gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can’t be thinking in Chinese. He’s gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    Bingo!

    As side note – this is typical Sapir–Whorf hypothesis:
    The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition.

    Interesting pattern in english literature is that hypothesis largely dismissed, but in Russian it is actively researched..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Very interesting
    I never heard of this. But it makes complete sense.
    , @Erebus

    The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition.
     
    I speak a couple of European languages, 1 badly and the other at say a 10 yr old's level. Even so, I can't help but notice that one's perspective and even personality change subtly to take on nuances that weren't there before. I'm a pretty firm believer that there's much more to this than is normally noticed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor
    It doesn't matter.

    US has more depth.

    It's like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn't all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    This is why Globalists are pushing all this anti-Russian hysteria. If Americans are made to think Russia is the enemy, then IF war breaks out between the US and Russia, Americans will be totally for a War Economy.

    US has resources 20x that of Russia.

    So, Russia must be defensive and avoid war with US at any cost.

    You are also having a next-gen fighter-bomber, F-35, that is ridiculously overpriced, not much good, costs an immense amount per plane, and is 60% or more of the time, stuck on the ground, or deck.

    Also a Navy where officers are too busy flirting with each other on the bridge to avoiding disastrous collisions, with deaths of many sailors.

    It is seeming to me to be a bad joke.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. iffen says:

    The worthless efforts of the US were not needed by Russia in WWII. Keep your locomotives and trucks. The motherland could build trucks and locomotives out of the rubble of the factories without any rubles. Keep your trucks. We have thousands of patriotic and glorious horses and mules to move millions of men and hundreds of millions of tons of supplies. You Americans know diddly about logistics. You can only simultaneously move thousands of men and millions of tons of material over two oceans and into foreign countries. You would utterly fail at moving men and material on table top land within your own country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. @Andrei Martyanov

    Nice theory but way too optimistic.
     
    No, it has nothing to do with "optimism" or otherwise. Erebus is spot on in giving a subject the treatment he gave. Not only it is legitimate but it is highly probable. Now comes my personal experiences with many things military, including with foreign (Arab, African etc.) cadets and officers--all so called "command words" (there is a special book dedicated to that) for their trainees were strictly Russian, the same as they were taught in Russian. Not because Russians are chauvinists but precisely because of the issue which Erebus described. Many Arab militaries, as an example, continued to use Russian language in combat for a reason. Try to teach calculus or combat system integration in Swahili, good luck with that. But here we are getting into a very specific subject.

    Lol, there is than more to this old saying that French is a language of love. Then English is a language of business communications and markets and quite reasonably Russian is a language of war considering Russia and Soviet Russian army record and background. In ancient times Latin was used same way in the military even when soldiers already were not native Latin speakers. This is very interesting topic. I wonder whether usage of Russian improve performance of aboriginals compared to them using own language and is there objective data.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Does Russia Now Have Superior Military Technology?

    A better question would be whether Russia has superior moral authority.

    The answer is that since the US has long ago squandered any shreds of moral authority it ever had, even a pig’s intestinal tapeworm has more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. @anony-mouse
    The original Cassandra of Greek mythology was young, female and beautiful. Not quite PCR.

    As for seeing the future next year we can all celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Apocalypsism.:

    http://endoftheworldsurvivalguide.com/DrPaulCraigRoberts.html

    Of course if the end is near there's only one truly American thing to sing:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzJbAZ4dwc

    As for seeing the future next year we can all celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Apocalypsism.:

    Yes, the sky is always falling. Here’s another boy crying wolf or izzit the Izzy Chickenshit Little?:

    Netanyahu is on record as early as 1992 claiming that Iran was “close” to having a nuke.
    Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 25 years ago.
    1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
    1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
    1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
    1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
    Etc., etc…

    http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/09/21/1992-breaking-news-netanyahu-says-iran-close-to-nuclear-weapon-veterans-today/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Z-man says:

    They spent billions on the F 35, a flying refrigerator!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Cyrano
    I think that Pierre de Coubertin would be proud of US for living according to the Olympic principle: It’s not important to win, but to participate. And then let someone else win the wars and then take credit for it.

    Like in WW2 when USSR did all the fighting and then after the war they discovered that communism is not “democratic”. The shock there, good think that they found out that in time to start the Cold war and prevent their former undemocratic allies from “taking over the world”.

    Then in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    Of course soon after they started using Islam to fight their wars for them, they also conveniently discovered that they too are not democratic, so the war on terror started in order to make sure that their “allies” don’t make too many gains at the expense of democracy.

    Sheesh! All this chatter of each other’s superiority over weapons of mass destruction! Like killing and maiming people in the hundreds of millions is something to aspire towards? It is not like those weapons have never been used too… and, if not sure, you may want to look up who used them.

    What a sickening bunch of satanic degenerates, many of those living in pale-faced societies are…

    And then infidels scoff snidely at the quote/unquote, peaceful religion? Can you genius intellectuals find any irony in that?

    Anyway, if not for the machinations of the white supremacist ChrizzyJuden evildoers, the quote/unquote peaceful religion would actually prove to be no more or no less peaceful than others… considering that it is simply being followed by fallible humans.

    Not so the Chrizzies and the Juden though, who have taken evil to an awesomely different level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Yeah, and you are model citizens, aren’t you? “Chrizzies” never tried to forcibly convert the Muzzies to their religion, probably aware that there is no use. The Muzzies actually did use force to convert Chrizzies to their religion. Ever heard of Janissaries – wonderful practice by the Muzzies of stealing Chrizzies children and training them to be ruthless warriors, never knowing their families or their roots. Pure humanity. Don’t try to teach me who is more evil, you’re going to have to find some other audience for that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Jim Christian
    Fair enough takes. I carry concealed, a kick-ass city or country boy might be re-edumicated about messing with 60 year-old guys. So far however, I never let anyone have it that didn't have it coming. Again, your takes are fair and cogent. Our kick-ass city and country boys were the norm back when I went in. Nerds were about the same proportion in the population as obese girls, that is, there were very, very few.. The rest of us got pounded playing sports, organized or sandlots. Which led to fights, handshakes and the learning of some honor. From High School, you were college material or you weren't, sometimes you were, but had no money and there were no loans. Those who were not college material, well that saying went, "The world needs ditch diggers too". The boys learned a trade, went into the military. The girls who were not college material stayed slender and got married and had babies. The girls who were became teachers and frequently found their husband at college. Now look, I don't say out in the hinterlands, or even in the coastal cities there aren't kick-ass boys, but it certainly isn't encouraged or even tolerated. But if you think the same proportions of kick-ass boys out there exist to the tune of 5, 10, 20 million in THIS country, forget it. We couldn't raise the same standing army and Navy we did back in the teens and 40s, I cannot fathom it. Aside from the physical characteristics of the inductees a boot camp would have to deal with, there isn't the same spirit in kids.

    For most, Mom is the one that left Junior fatherless, Apple Pie is from a wax paper wrapper with Hostess printed on it and Chevrolet is a $22,000-dollar bent shit can with three shots of clear coat made in cooperation with Kia of China. That is not an America that builds morale. To top it off, the education of our children toward heritage and war and sacrifice has changed, you'd have to re-program the kids in many ways. Just ain't happening. And then, there are the girls, the first ones that would have to be reformed for wartime, the ones we have, no good. For starters...Naw, it's over..

    Good comment, both yours and JBW’s below. I won’t argue the point further. Probably moot anyway. I realize now how silly my original comment was. The Saker was talking about “hardware” and here I am talking about character, heart and guts. Anyway, the wars of tomorrow will be fought by the keyboard-pecking geek in the dark trailer a million miles from the battlefield so what do personal qualities of courage have to do with it anyway? They’re become as “irrelevantized” as have the practice of Homeric heroes calling out their adversary before battle and launching into a speech extolling their family’s glorious martial patrimony and history of bravery in past battles. The personal element is becoming ever smaller on the battlefield.

    First world war was so abhorred because of the human waste. A young man arrives at the front. An artillery shell lands in his proximity. He is blown to bits. He never even saw the enemy much less engaged him. It was a random lottery. What’s the point? When random death rules, the mind boggles. The only way to cope is to adopt an equally insane mindset. That’s why war veterans are so mind-f*cked.

    Civil society requires that we have faith in the Justice of the system. War mocks human notions of justice or at any rate, has done so ever since the invention of–literally–slings and arrows, projectiles whose final destination is not wholly controlled by the source. Look at the HMS Hood, or King Harald with the arrow through the eye. Paris, who stole Helen was an archer at Troy. This association was made to demonstrate his treachery and cowardliness. He not only stole his host’s wife while his host was away, but refused to fight man to man, striking from a safe distance via the bow and arrow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hunor
    stupid
    , @bluedog
    Who cares for its not going to happen,we can spend spend spend on suspect weapon systems and argue they are the best but with a dead economy trillions in debt and a collaspe of the financial system like Russia had will probably occure first..
    , @Anon
    "...revisionists like Putin..." -- And your opinion about your Bibi and our Trump? Peachy?
    Russia has been fighting for survival, for some 20 years, and not without some success. There were numerous attempts by Russian Federation to establish the normal and mutually fruitful relationships with the EU and US. Could you explain why the US has not been interested and the pitiful vassalage of Europe could not dare to have a voice on these matters?
    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
    Harold Pinter - Nobel Lecture: "Art, Truth & Politics"

    "Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. ... the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.
    Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed...
    The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
    Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy."
    , @Anon
    In case you still do not understand the dynamics of ziocon/evangelical plans & actions in relation to Russia, here are the facts: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    "According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.
    The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.
    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.
    The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.
    The USSR developed its own atomic bomb in 1949, in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.
    On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes"

    Truman other infamy was "he got the Jewish money and the Jewish vote" http://rense.com/general77/truman.htm
    , @FB

    '...Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further!...'
     
    Interesting...

    And this US lead of two to three generations in technology includes the scramjet engine, about which I wrote in the above comment...

    Ie...supersonic combusting ramjet engine which powers the hypersonic Zircon missile...while US scramjet technology is still in the lab stage...

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    Would be very interested in hearing your 'expert' comment...
    , @renfro
    You should wish the US had a leader as smart as Putin.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

    Putin Pays off all USSR Debt
    Paying back $60bn of USSR debt with the latest payment of 22bn owed to the 17 Paris Club creditors.

    Russia paid off all its debt---the US otoh is swimming in debt .....6% of US income (taxes) goes to pay interest on that debt last time I checked, probably higher now.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. FB says:
    @Avery
    {And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east}

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don't give a promise to your enemy.

    SU had a deep penetration super spy in Japan: Richard Sorge.
    Sorge found out that Japan had decided not to invade USSR, for whatever reason.
    For once Stalin believed his spy. (......maybe he had confirmation from other sources in this case).
    Sorge had previously informed Moscow that Hitler was going to invade SU, but he did not know the date. Stalin did not believe him.

    The rest is correct: when Stalin was sure that Japan would not invade from the East, he transferred 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia to the Moscow front. And these troops were tough Siberian men, well acclimated to fight in very cold weather.
    They arrived just in time. Thank God.

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don’t give a promise to your enemy.

    Actually there was…The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact…signed in 1941…and honored by both sides…

    For instance when B29 bomber crews had to make emergency landings in Russia’s far east…Stalin didn’t let the air crews go…even though US was an ally…

    He made sure to keep them for a few months then secretly spirited them through to Iran, which was on Russia’s Caucasus border…and which was jointly run by Russia and US during the war…

    Cyrano is correct that the Japs didn’t want to tangle with Uncle Joe after they were quickly rolled back in their attempts to invade Soviet territory in the far east…

    About the lengthy comments re Battle of Bulge [Ardennes]…

    Let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees…Battle of Kursk dwarfed the Battle of the Bulge in both size and importance…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/wwiis-greatest-battle-how-kursk-changed-the-war

    ‘…After their defeat at Kursk, the Germans never again looked like they might win the war on the Eastern Front, the theater that held the key to overall victory in the war…’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Actually there was…The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact…signed in 1941…and honored by both sides…}

    1939 August: Germany-USSR non-aggression pact.
    1940 September: Germany-Japan-Italy Tripartite pact.
    1941 April: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact.

    Despite the non-aggression pact between Germany and SU, Nazi Germany invaded SU in June 1941.

    Stalin was not someone to put his trust on a piece of paper, particularly after Hitler spat on it and invaded anyway. If Stalin had put any stock on a piece of pare, he would not keep badly needed troops, tanks, and airplanes in Siberia. He kept them there, because he prudently considered the possibility that Japan would invade - neutrality pact or no pact. Those Siberian troops arrived just in time to turn the tide of the Battle of Moscow. It was very close: without those fresh, tough Siberian troops Germans may have broken through.

    {....…and honored by both sides…}

    Are you serious?
    Is that why SU invaded Manchuria and totally routed the Imperial Japanese?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Ondrej

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine. It’s a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he’s gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can’t be thinking in Chinese. He’s gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.
     
    Bingo!

    As side note - this is typical Sapir–Whorf hypothesis:
    The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition.

    Interesting pattern in english literature is that hypothesis largely dismissed, but in Russian it is actively researched..

    Very interesting
    I never heard of this. But it makes complete sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ondrej
    In case you do not mind russian - here you have more detailed explanation:

    http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/YAZIKOVAYA_KARTINA_MIRA.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    It doesn't matter.

    US has more depth.

    It's like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn't all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    This is why Globalists are pushing all this anti-Russian hysteria. If Americans are made to think Russia is the enemy, then IF war breaks out between the US and Russia, Americans will be totally for a War Economy.

    US has resources 20x that of Russia.

    So, Russia must be defensive and avoid war with US at any cost.

    The march of the obnoxious (and stupid) psychopaths in the highest echelons of the US power: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    “On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes”

    The usual expression of “pious” US deciders, “…an overwhelming influence towards world peace…” The US has become the paragon of amorality and hypocrisy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Rich says:
    @jilles dykstra
    That I criticise the USA is just based on facts.
    I do not criticise the overwhelming majority of the USA people, they're just victims of the two or three % richest USA citizens who run the country.
    Am reading Howard Zinn, the facts are not new to me, but to see them listed one after another, sad reading.

    Stop reading Zinn. Now. He is a biased, Marxist historian who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint. By the time you finish that ridiculous book, based on your already anti-American leanings, you’re going to hate the USA. No nation is perfect, but the US has tried, in most cases, to be a liberating force in the world. We didn’t turn Japan and Germany into agrarian territories like some wanted. We didn’t authorize the rape of every female from 8 to 80 like the Soviets did. There are more American Indians alive today, with full voting rights, than there were when Jamestown was founded. We didn’t send our boys to Korea and Nam to conquer and enslave the people, we were there to protect them from the murderous Reds. If the dopes in Al Quaeda hadn’t stupidly attacked the US, we wouldn’t be in the Afghan or Iraq, either. The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them...'
     
    I guess the whole world is now 'biting the hand that feeds them...'

    http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

    No less than a quarter of the world population thinks US is the biggest threat to world peace...

    Even funnier...13 percent of US agrees...

    In Canada it's 17 percent...and Mexico 34 percent...

    What a knee-slapper...even US neighbors biting that 'benevolent' hand...

    US wins the prize of biggest threat to peace by a mile...second place Pakistan gets only 8 percent...three times less than US...china at 6 percent...

    I guess they should all stop reading Zinn and other 'anti-American' books...?
    , @jilles dykstra
    The problem, I fear, is that Zinn does not write much else than I already knew from books like:
    Larry G. Gerber, ´The Limits of Liberalism, Josephus Daniels, Henry Stimson, Bernard Baruch, Donald Richberg, Felix Frankfurter and the Development of the Modern American Political Economy’, New York, London, 1984
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, I, The first thousand days’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, II, The inside struggle’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, III, The lowering clouds’, New York, 1954
    John F. Flynn, ‘Gold von Gott, Die Rockefeller-Saga’, Berlin 1937 (‘God's Gold : The Story of Rockefeller and His Times’, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1932)
    Herbert Aptheker, 'Negro Slave Revolts in the United States 1526 - 1860 ', New York 1939
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ‘Secrecy’, New Haven 1998
    Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
    Edwin E. Moïse, Tonkin Gulf and the escalation of the Vietnam War, 1996, London
    The list is far from complete.
    , @jacques sheete

    ...who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint.
     
    How can you be so sure that history shouldn't be re-written? By the rest of your comment, it looks as if you've swallowed nearly century old war propaganda as some sort of "history."

    As late as 1958, then, [A.J.P.] Taylor clung as tenaciously as before to his Germanophobic line... [then he] began to investigate the documents, and as he did so, he began to realize the truth. The power of the truth, and his courageous recognition of the truth swept away all of his own biases and preconceptions

    … the Germans were morally right…


    -Murray N. Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J .P. Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961 — now New York: Athenaeum, 1962).
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/


     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Joe Hide says:

    Saker,
    You’re articles were already pretty good. I think they are getting even better!
    Just be aware, that mass consciousness here in the U.S. is also evolving and improving at at ever increasing rate. The fact that more of us are reading Your articles is strong evidence of that. Keep informing us in Your customized writing style. It will change us more than anything else!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. Mulegino1 says:

    America was a great nation when it confined itself to the role which Divine Providence assigned to it, i.e., as a great, transcontinental tellurocratic power providing an alternative homeland to European Christians wearied by the dynastic squabbles and interminable conflicts of the ancestral homeland.

    Unfortunately, this role was abandoned in the last decade of the 19th century due to the emergence of the Empire builders like T.R., Mahan and John Hay, inter alia.

    The Imperial phase led to the utterly disastrous decision by Woodrow Wilson (no doubt under extreme duress and probably blackmail) to involve the U.S. in the First World War, and F.D.R.’s even more catastrophic – even apocalyptic – intervention in the Second, which dealt, ultimately, the fatal blow to the Christian European homeland of Western and Central Europe.

    The collapse of the old Soviet Union provided the final coup d’ grace to any pretense of American greatness in the post war years, since it proved, once and for all, that the U.S. has been governed and controlled by a corporate and financial hyena class, which relies upon the projection of overwhelming American military might and “cultural” (in reality anti-cultural and kosher) predatory hegemony upon the edges of the great world struggle for the control of Central Asia, the world heartland.

    As it stands now, the legacy of 30 or so years of easy victories over pitifully infinitesimal and weak opponents and the continuing sycophantic and triumphalist praise of Hollywood (which knows who will fight for Eretz Israel) the US military machine is analogous to a super obese diva continously gorging herself on boxes of chocolates. This is tragic. The U.S. military has not engaged with an adversary at rough conventional parity since the latter stages of the Korean War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Erebus

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.
     
    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is "Yes, with Chinese characteristics". In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they'll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35's systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can't be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a "cookbook" understanding of the machine. It's a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he's gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can't be thinking in Chinese. He's gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There's also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to "get it" as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money's worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an "all Russian" program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.


    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I'm pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.

    To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine.

    With training they will master it. They have done a good job of learning English. I only need to learn the meaning of a few icons to drive my Toyota. It doesn’t matter whether those icons are little pictures, English words or Russian. In combat pilots surely don’t have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.

    Russian is not that complex. It is just another Indo-European language spelled phonetically. They have more case endings than English, but about the same as Latin. Once you learn the Cyrillic alphabet, you will see many words in common with western languages. What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ondrej

    What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?
     
    It is not about complexity, but different way of thinking, you can often clearly see it in engineering, Japanies and Chines products they have simply different logic in comparison to European (German for example), quite often it is visible in software UI logic as well. You can clearly see it when you dealing with some control SW of more complex machines..

    To certain degree you can see it also in between various nations.. French versus German for example...

    , @Sergey Krieger
    Russian is very different from say English. Grammar and changes that words are going through when spoken in different situations, times tenses, who is speaking male or female and so forth so on. I studied in China some 29 years ago. It looked like we were mastering spoken Chinese better than other way around. One of our students actually won competition among Han locals for position of radio host. Her Potong Hua was flawless and pronunciation spot on. Learning written language requires a lot of hard work and daily study. Without constant practice it is getting forgotten rather quickly. I agree that one who learned written Chinese would have little problem to memorize kirillik or Latin as mere icons. I would not have.
    , @Erebus

    They have done a good job of learning English.
     
    I have no idea about Su35 candidates, but my best translator (I've had several) placed 4th in a city competition in spoken/written English, and has degrees in English Lit and in International Commercial Law. Both require intensive use of English. Still, he struggles even at the levels of tech that I deal with, and would be hopelessly lost at levels significantly above that. We would both be hopelessly lost discussing an SU35.

    I doubt I can add much to what Ondrej and Sergey Krieger have already said without giving the whole topic a lot more thought than I've had time to devote to it. At this point, my thoughts on the topic are a somewhat disjointed compendium of observations, but I remain convinced there's depths there that would yield insights not only in regards to SU35s, but to the entire scope of human action. Suffice to say that it's a lot more complex than figuring out how to turn your Toyota's heater on.

    In combat pilots surely don’t have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.
     
    Exactly, but they have to know why they're doing the things they're doing if they're to become masters of their reflexes rather than be driven by them. Think of the long psycho-cultural indoctrination a warrior monk undergoes before he finally "gets it" and can start to learn actual strategies and physical techniques. I think something like that is behind the Chinese decision to go with Cyrillic labels.

    What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?
     
    I wasn't really saying that, but Russian does have a vastly larger vocabulary, and so circumvents some of the ambiguities inherent in Chinese that makes communication and execution problematic as things get increasingly technical/specialized. Some of the concepts involved may not have an analogue in Chinese. Creating them is rarely efficient, and never quite satisfactory in my experience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    They must have a media as strong as the US does, otherwise they are in a weaker position.
    Facebook, twitter, google – these are but a few of the US’ most powerful weapons. Americans themselves are under 24/7 assault from information technology. The war is here as much as it is anywhere else. Crush any real threats, create layers of fake opposition through websites that all carry titilating diversions that pose as thoughful intellectual analysis.

    Russia probably has an equivalent number of journalists, former spooks or security professionals who dictate the proper amount of journalistic edge and harmless status quo criticism to appeal to readers through their writing. Undoubtedly an idiot like the Saker writes for a domestic audience to ridiculously simplify global affairs as some version of a Avalon Hill war game from the 1970s where the soldiers are lined up on each side. Widest possible audience – 5th graders on up.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @Jim Christian
    As for the B-61,

    None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s–approaching or already at 30 years
     
    We used to load those damned things two or three to an A-6 East of the Italian heel in the Med where they would become part of the nuclear triad. This was mid-70s. The A-6 Es, would, in war, be responsible for a one-way trip north to certain Soviet shipyards where they would reduce said shipyards to a radioactive puddle. For practice carrying them and for us loading them, they would fly and drill with Fabulous Fakes, Whites with Blue stripes, the real ones were all-silver. All this is utterly unclassified these days, by the way. We knew nothing of the innards and special folks would be along to dial-the-yield, that was none of the loaders' business. But since you mention dependability, the electronics packages built into fakes and real weapons alike, weren't terribly dependable. We'd have a hell of a time getting three ready to fly out of six. Understand, the planes are pulling 6 and 7 and more G's, then coming back home with them, they treated to a carrier landing's return and so for us, they weren't so dependable, just for wire checks and their ability to talk to the airplane's electronics, they were a hassle to keep going. The physics within? Damned if I know, none of my business, even as I loaded them. In a war? Would they actually go "Pop"? Who knows?

    Thanks for your comment. Always enjoy hearing from someone with real world experience. The increasing uncertainty appears to be the radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go “Pop,” but maybe not “ka-boom.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    "radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go “Pop,” but maybe not “ka-boom.”
     
    You mean, there's radioactive shit in a B-61? I had no idea. I thought it was just physics. A motherboard, a canon plug, a few wires. Damn! Had I but known!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Cyrano says:
    @Avery
    {And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east}

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don't give a promise to your enemy.

    SU had a deep penetration super spy in Japan: Richard Sorge.
    Sorge found out that Japan had decided not to invade USSR, for whatever reason.
    For once Stalin believed his spy. (......maybe he had confirmation from other sources in this case).
    Sorge had previously informed Moscow that Hitler was going to invade SU, but he did not know the date. Stalin did not believe him.

    The rest is correct: when Stalin was sure that Japan would not invade from the East, he transferred 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia to the Moscow front. And these troops were tough Siberian men, well acclimated to fight in very cold weather.
    They arrived just in time. Thank God.

    Your version of the events is more factually accurate than mine. Mine is only a speculation. I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy and that he would make such a huge gamble based on that – leaving the far east exposed.

    I think that he must have had some other assurances from other sources. I know what you are saying, that Sorge established his credentials by being correct about the German attack, so Stalin trusted him the second time around about his intel of the Japanese intentions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy....}

    I agree: Stalin was too cautious and paranoid to trust just one man, even if Sorge was right about Nazi invasion. So Stalin must have had other confirmation, which would be prudent. Sorge told him first, and Stalin had it confirmed by other means.

    It's just a speculation on my part, but possibly Stalin's other spies in Nazi Germany confirmed it: Japan being an ally of Nazi Germany, Japanese may have told Hitler not to expect a Japanese invasion from the East. Remember that Sorge was a spy in Japan when he found out about Hitler's plan to invade SU. Germans must have told Japanese leaders, probably hoping Japan would invade from the East same time Germany invaded from the West.

    Or, maybe Soviet military intelligence confirmed it by observing the movement or non-movement of various Japanese military assets to particular staging sites.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @FB
    Ha...I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this...

    I have an interesting mind-question...how many Aermicans [or in the wider West for that matter] actually know that this episode of WW2 even happened...?

    I say this because I only became aware of the existence of the Soviet-Japanese war only very recently...and quite by accident...

    And then I began feeling angry...that such an important piece of history has been so deliberately concealed from The People...

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information...anyone interested can start with wikipedia...and follow some of the references...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

    A good doc on youtube is here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuMDG2TvcY

    But I like this one even better...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjygZML_X-o

    And here is a 200 page treatise from US Army historian David Glantz...[which I'm still plowing through...]

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    Some of the interesting things I learned...

    1. The Japs were deathly afraid of the Soviets and Stalin...not surprising having seen the mighty German war machine completely destroyed by same...

    2..The Russians upon entering Manchuria were quite amused by the Japanese weapons...their tanks with 50 mm guns were pea shooters compared to German equipment...their landmines were laughably simple...

    3. Russian generals couldn't comprehend how the US had so much trouble and took so much time to subdue the Japs in Iwo Jima etc...

    The Russian war machine was a battle-hardened monster that just ate up the Japs in a couple of quick bites across the vast territory of Manchuria...same with the Kurils, Sakhalin and Hokkaido was next on the list...

    One gets the impression that if Stalin had just said 'no thanks' the US might still be fighting the Japs to this day...

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information…anyone interested can start with wikipedia…and follow some of the references…

    I was oblivious to this war until I read the autobiography of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. If you want to understand the origins of modern China, this book is a must read.

    Puyi, From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi. Foreign Language Press, Beijing China: 1989 (no ISBN)

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.
     
    Really?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. FB says:
    @Erebus
    A "war" between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

    Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can't win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn't lose much should they be attacked.
    Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM's M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies' confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia's superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn't have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

    ‘…Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly…’

    This is the layman’s take…as I tried to point out on the 800 lb Gorilla thread…

    ‘…Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset…’

    That is not how a US-Russia conflict in Syria would unfold…

    As I began to explain on the other thread…a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to suppress the Russian air defenses there…

    Ie a SEAD operation…

    A massive TLAM salvo at Hmeimim would achieve nothing

    Russian SAMs [numbering in the dozens of launchers and radars are already dispersed...and could not be targeted by TLAMs which have no such capability...]

    Russian aircraft there would be in the skies defending the airspace and shooting down TLAMs not sitting on the airfield…so would not be hit by a TLAM salvo…

    What is the result…?

    Russian SAMs are are all still there an able to shoot down any airspace intruders…

    No Russian aircraft lost…and can operate from any number of airfields in the area…or even from Russian bases…

    A TLAM salvo…no matter how massive… would achieve nothing…anyone who knows anything about air combat knows this…

    But again…it is ridiculous to contemplate a TLAM salvo…as the US would never contemplate such a ridiculous and doomed-to-fail scenario…

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop…but nobody seems interested…

    Now on this thread…the discussion was supposed to be about Russian advances in crucial technologies like the scramjet engine [supersonic combusting ramjet]…which powers the new Zircon missile…and which technology the US lags far behind…

    Yet the discussion has inevitably turned into armchair general nonsense…

    Go get yourselves a copy of CMANO…and have at it…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command%3A_Modern_Air_Naval_Operations

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Sorry FB, didn't notice your post.

    This is the layman’s take…
     
    I'm obviously a layman, but there are a few professionals hanging around here that disagree with you, so (assuming you're a professional) what's a layman to do when the experts disagree? Well, I think things through as best I can and come to my "layman's take". If I'm lucky, a pro will show me where I went wrong. If I'm even luckier and hit close to the mark, a pro may come along and apply a course correction.

    The take I took on the 800lb Gorilla thread was that the Russians would "run out bullets" before the USM "ran out of targets" for them to shoot at. Assuming the Russians have 3-500 SAMs and a dozen, maybe 2, air superiority fighters in Syria, what happens after they've all been launched/lost first against salvos of various stand-off missiles including the TLAM, followed by fleets of Predators and other armed UAVs, and then against incoming waves of B1/2s, B52s, F15/16/18/22s, etc and there's still more waves coming, from all directions? Following that will come waves of A10s, Apaches, and whatever else Centcom can throw at what's left of now defenceless ground targets. Even at 100% combat efficiency, somewhere along the line the Russians will have run out ammunition. Latakia, Tartus, and Hmeimim would surely be degraded to inoperable if not destroyed. No? If not, why not?

    To be sure, Centcom would have to have understood the existential nature of its situation, and moreover lost their aversion to casualties. Absent the Russian demonstrations of their stand-off capabilities, it is imaginable that the the USM would be able to man-up and deal with it. After those demonstrations, it ceased being a matter of losing a few hundred planes and assets, and became a very high probability of losing Centcom altogether. That, I think is what stayed their hand.

    …a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to suppress the Russian air defenses there…
     
    Would it? Or would it just have to deplete them? In any case, the real combat efficiency of the S3/400 and Pantsir complexes is unknown to us (at least to me), but I doubt it's reliably "1 shot - 1 kill", never mind "1 shot - n kills" (where n>1).

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop…but nobody seems interested…
     
    I guess you haven't been there lately. I and another commentator were lamenting the thread's apparent death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Rich says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Rich, I've been following your comments and it appears that you have neglected to add the precise distance of just how far you are able to urinate. I'm sure it's quite impressive though and way further than anyone else. It's a very easy error to make but this simple omission would seem to be costing you the victory that you seek in this debate. Do what you must.

    Wow. Is that really what you think about? Man, that’s disgusting. You should get a hobby or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    It's called a pissing contest as you should well know since it's what you do. To you, any criticism of American foreign policy is either un-American or anti-American and it doesn't seem to occur to you that many Americans love America and the ideals that they once believed it stood for but they HATE what has become of it. Your pissing display or chest-thumping, call it what you will, only serves to further empower the enemies of the American PEOPLE by those who have highjacked the USA and are driving it to destruction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Technology aside, I can’t see an American military made up of mall rats, hood rats, foreign mercenary immigrants, transgenders, SJWs, radical feminists, benefit seekers, and whatever else, holding its own against the Russians or Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. @Diversity Heretic
    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.

    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?

    Nothing special, really. He was a division commander at Kursk, he certainly was not a dummy and was an experienced officer, but his emergence to the operational top of Wehrmacht coincided with this very Wehrmacht’s decline due to fighting the Red Army.

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.

    True, movie Patton (and George C. Scott is one of my favorite actors of all time) is one of the greatest Hollywood fairy tales ever made–insulting in its misrepresentation of the real war and the role of Commanders in it. Patton himself was the greatest PR general in military history. His delusion is excellently demonstrated in his conversation with US Army Undersecretary Patterson in May 1945–his monologue is not a monologue of mentally adequate person. Somehow Eisenhower never merited a good movie about himself (with the exception of a second-tier unnoticed picture with Tom Selleck), nor Omar Bradly has any movie about himself, but he certainly deserved one. Nor will Americans ever see movie about Gerow’s V Corps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Enjoy your comments! I'm no huge fan of Patton myself, and Rick Atkinson's books paint a picture of a talented but very erratic personality, who probably reached his highest "level of competence" as a corps commander. Or as Omar Bradley said of George Patton: "The oddest duck I ever meant.

    I thought there was also a movie about Ike in which he as portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Douglas MacArthur has had at least one movie made about him. Too bad no cinematic depiction of the much more competent Chester Nimitz, or maybe Raymond Spruance.

    As fun as it is to exchange views on WWII, I am increasingly depressed by the sheer tragedy of the first half of the 20th Century. The spectacle of Europeans and European-origin people killing each other in large numbers is well, just damned depressing! Do we now have the execrable Theresa May and Angela Merkel beccause of the losses on the Somme or at Stalingrad? I'm originally from Iowa and one loss of WWII was Nile Kinnock--Heisman Trophy winner and Sportsman of the Year in 1939. People who knew him said that he would have had a good chance to be Iowa governor. He died in a training accident in 1942.

    On the subject of the Saker's original article, well that's another tragedy. The U.S. and Russia have no real differences that need be resolved by bows and arrows, let alone F-35s and Sukhois.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Ondrej says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Very interesting
    I never heard of this. But it makes complete sense.

    In case you do not mind russian – here you have more detailed explanation:

    http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/YAZIKOVAYA_KARTINA_MIRA.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Thank you. Will read with great interest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Ondrej says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine.
     
    With training they will master it. They have done a good job of learning English. I only need to learn the meaning of a few icons to drive my Toyota. It doesn't matter whether those icons are little pictures, English words or Russian. In combat pilots surely don't have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.

    Russian is not that complex. It is just another Indo-European language spelled phonetically. They have more case endings than English, but about the same as Latin. Once you learn the Cyrillic alphabet, you will see many words in common with western languages. What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    It is not about complexity, but different way of thinking, you can often clearly see it in engineering, Japanies and Chines products they have simply different logic in comparison to European (German for example), quite often it is visible in software UI logic as well. You can clearly see it when you dealing with some control SW of more complex machines..

    To certain degree you can see it also in between various nations.. French versus German for example…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    In terms of spoken language Russian is by far more complex than chinese. Grammar alone is on different level. Modern Chinese grammar is basically very simple. When it comes to reading and writing it is obviously a different ball game. Chinese is far more difficult to master and requires years of hard daily study and never ending practice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    The difficulty in deciding who has the best weapons is to decide which weapons matter. The US has aircraft carriers and possible fighter jets superior to anything possessed by its competitors, but if the aircraft carriers are vulnerable to supersonic cruise and ballistic missiles, and the F35 is vulnerable to long-range anti-aircraft missiles, then American weapons superiority will prove to be of the wrong kind.

    America is well prepared to fight WW2 again, but may be set for humiliation flying F35s from aircraft carriers against Russian S500 missiles, or messing with China’s, perhaps quantum-encrypted, satellite communications.

    In an era of advanced technology, the most important national “weapons system” is the tech and manufacturing sector. The US is clearly losing competitiveness in both areas, as its educational system goes down the tubes and its industrial base continues to decline in scope and versatility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. AaronB says:

    Your remark about Americans being unable to understand Hegelian dialectic is particularly perceptive.

    When I try to explain to Americans that the strength of the West – technology, science, and the critical spirit – has led to its weakness, I am met with a deafening silence.

    Americans literally cannot understand paradox, it is beyond their ken.

    The alt-right continues to plan for the cultural resurgence of the West based on the very thing that destroyed it’s culture, the critical scientific spirit.

    The second time, history repeats itself ad farce. Humans never learn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. @polskijoe
    I think the US still has a small advantage in conventional.

    My guess:
    Russian army is stronger
    US airforce/navy is stronger.

    Nukes: depends on who is faster, and we have self assured destruction (or whatever the term is).

    What is also important, is prototypes, secret programs. Im sure both countries have.
    US has money advantage (although also debt).

    Other important things: advantage in space, biological, chemical and maybe weather war options.

    US airforce/navy is stronger.

    US Navy, despite all its problems, is the strongest Navy in the world and by far. But it also has a fatal flaw. This, to a significant degree applies to US Air Force too. The issue with acquisition in US military is, indeed, clear and present danger to the US and it is only the fact of US superb geographic position that this gigantic flaw hasn’t been demonstrated even more dramatically. This is how Colonel Davies was forced to admit it:

    The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-sobering-truth-about-the-pentagons-acquisition-failures-15138

    The problem is deeper than some collection of technologies, the problem is cultural and it cannot be changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Geographic location has been America blessing so far. But considering changes you have been talking about and America never ending willingness to make bets may lead to USA sooner or later "winning" the lottery but not one American elites are looking for.it is a matter of enough bets made actually. Due to mentioned by you cultural thing America is reckless and is playing with fire.
    , @Narwan
    Thanks for the excellent background information.

    With regards to the US navy though one should not assign it too much clout. The US navy is primairily a colonial enforcement tool whose actual combat capabilities are nowhere near the level they are commonly portrayed at.
    The quality of the equipment used is overall fairly poor, either due to being outdated, being too complicated (resulting in a lot of downtime) and most importantly the incomptence of the crews. The latter is a very serious issue in the US armed forces and especially in the US surface fleet. Add to that the top-heavy organisation of the different commands filled with political generals and admirals.

    Instead of just listing examples i'd like to refer to this excellent website. Both the author of the blog and the main contributors to the discussions are very pro-US but they are also very aware of the near disastrous state of the US (surface) navy and discuss this in great detail with many showcases:

    http://navy-matters.blogspot.de/

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.
    I very much fear that should the US navy be seriously challenged by an opponent all too many of it's surface vessels will turn out to be floating coffins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Ondrej

    What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?
     
    It is not about complexity, but different way of thinking, you can often clearly see it in engineering, Japanies and Chines products they have simply different logic in comparison to European (German for example), quite often it is visible in software UI logic as well. You can clearly see it when you dealing with some control SW of more complex machines..

    To certain degree you can see it also in between various nations.. French versus German for example...

    In terms of spoken language Russian is by far more complex than chinese. Grammar alone is on different level. Modern Chinese grammar is basically very simple. When it comes to reading and writing it is obviously a different ball game. Chinese is far more difficult to master and requires years of hard daily study and never ending practice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ondrej
    Well, some argue based on legacy of Prague linguistic circle and Vygotsky, that spoken and written language are in fact two separate languages - means of communication.

    Making situation even bit more complex;-)

    In case you would find that interesting - Vygotsky: Мышление и речь, Thinking and Speech are interesting and not difficult to read...

    As for Russian as language of war, to me Russian military terminology is clear mirror of its millenium exchanges with various languages/military traditions - and it is bit mess (IMHO) .

    Sometimes it is even difficult to translate to very close language such as Czech:
    Often one can not find correct pair - word for certain terms, even when one can understand meaning due to shared history of language... which often in past resulted in just accepting some terns without translation..

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Hu Mi Yu

    To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine.
     
    With training they will master it. They have done a good job of learning English. I only need to learn the meaning of a few icons to drive my Toyota. It doesn't matter whether those icons are little pictures, English words or Russian. In combat pilots surely don't have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.

    Russian is not that complex. It is just another Indo-European language spelled phonetically. They have more case endings than English, but about the same as Latin. Once you learn the Cyrillic alphabet, you will see many words in common with western languages. What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    Russian is very different from say English. Grammar and changes that words are going through when spoken in different situations, times tenses, who is speaking male or female and so forth so on. I studied in China some 29 years ago. It looked like we were mastering spoken Chinese better than other way around. One of our students actually won competition among Han locals for position of radio host. Her Potong Hua was flawless and pronunciation spot on. Learning written language requires a lot of hard work and daily study. Without constant practice it is getting forgotten rather quickly. I agree that one who learned written Chinese would have little problem to memorize kirillik or Latin as mere icons. I would not have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Ondrej
    In case you do not mind russian - here you have more detailed explanation:

    http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/YAZIKOVAYA_KARTINA_MIRA.html

    Thank you. Will read with great interest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Ben Gunn says:

    Good column, Saker. Corruption in the military is an American tradition. Union uniforms printed on paper for example, or the infamous fire trap Sherman tank. A WW2 vet told me they asked every week for tank volunteers. It was regarded as a death trap. We did understand the airplane, fighter and bomber was more important than the German tank.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. FB says:
    @Rich
    Stop reading Zinn. Now. He is a biased, Marxist historian who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint. By the time you finish that ridiculous book, based on your already anti-American leanings, you're going to hate the USA. No nation is perfect, but the US has tried, in most cases, to be a liberating force in the world. We didn't turn Japan and Germany into agrarian territories like some wanted. We didn't authorize the rape of every female from 8 to 80 like the Soviets did. There are more American Indians alive today, with full voting rights, than there were when Jamestown was founded. We didn't send our boys to Korea and Nam to conquer and enslave the people, we were there to protect them from the murderous Reds. If the dopes in Al Quaeda hadn't stupidly attacked the US, we wouldn't be in the Afghan or Iraq, either. The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them.

    ‘…The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them…’

    I guess the whole world is now ‘biting the hand that feeds them…’

    http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

    No less than a quarter of the world population thinks US is the biggest threat to world peace…

    Even funnier…13 percent of US agrees…

    In Canada it’s 17 percent…and Mexico 34 percent…

    What a knee-slapper…even US neighbors biting that ‘benevolent’ hand…

    US wins the prize of biggest threat to peace by a mile…second place Pakistan gets only 8 percent…three times less than US…china at 6 percent…

    I guess they should all stop reading Zinn and other ‘anti-American’ books…?

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Rich
    With all the anti-American propaganda that you, and a lot of others on this site swallow, I'm surprised it's only 25% and I'm encouraged that it's only 17% in Canada. Human nature, as it is, I can understand many people, like the Mexicans, being jealous of their wealthy neighbor. Still, they'll do anything they can to get across the Rio Grande, won't they? If, Heaven forbid, the Chicoms ever become the world's sole superpower, people will be praying for the return of the very benevolent Americans.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. America is the lap-dog, ultimately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Randal

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans
     
    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th - the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
     
    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    hmmm. I’d say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.
    Saker says on his page he’s studying theology. There’s 3 Russian Orthodox monasteries on Mt. Athos he can go to navel gaze, and they really are the pros there.

    It is an altogether worthwhile and proper discussion for everyone to wonder why we have so many deployments, like in what world of even perfectly conventional Republicrat thinking does it make any sense that we are so deployed, in so many places. We will be stronger – deployed less.

    Another worthwhile question is why the hell anyone is talking about a 300 ship navy when we can’t keep 1/3rd of the current one sailing and why 50% of its planes aren’t flightworthy. Then there’s the F35.

    All of those are good questions. A rarely deployed US military, with a smaller navy, with 1/3 of its ships deployed 100% of the time and in full readiness, with 80% of its planes flightworthy, is a military Russia has no stomach to test.

    But then – again – why the hell do we need to think about fighting Russia? Yes, yes – I know there are 20 answers and the response is: we shouldn’t fight Russia, and Russia shouldn’t fight us. It’s in neither country’s interests and only a damn fool thinks otherwise.

    As to Saker – and every, silly, little, puissant article he insists on publishing … do this:

    Imagine you are a US Marine, Army Ranger, or other manner of deployed infantry or airmobile unit – and go ahead and imagine that it is in one of these deployments that do nothing at all for US interests – day to day you do your thing and you know what your thing is and so do your comrades – and every once in awhile there’s a death in Yemen or Niger or Libya – and they are kind of like the exceptions that prove the rule, and meanwhile you know your thing, and you know what’s going on, and you know how war works.

    And you know: Saker is completely full of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    hmmm. I’d say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.
     
    Well.....assuming that's not a rhetorical question, how about this:

    There is a very well thought out reason.
    The execution is sometimes crude, but well managed. Offsets the crudeness, more or less. Clever, really.
    Takes some time and effort to get it here, but, you can't miss it in time.

    There is actually a core reason and then, say, additional two reasons of less importance.

    And, of course, can't spell them out. One of those "Internet chat" catches 22.

    But, with just a little bit of effort anyone can figure that out.
    A good exercise IMHO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Diversity Heretic
    Thanks for your comment. Always enjoy hearing from someone with real world experience. The increasing uncertainty appears to be the radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go "Pop," but maybe not "ka-boom."

    “radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go “Pop,” but maybe not “ka-boom.”

    You mean, there’s radioactive shit in a B-61? I had no idea. I thought it was just physics. A motherboard, a canon plug, a few wires. Damn! Had I but known!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. hunor says:
    @Michael Kenny
    The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    stupid

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, he is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. bluedog says:
    @Michael Kenny
    The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    Who cares for its not going to happen,we can spend spend spend on suspect weapon systems and argue they are the best but with a dead economy trillions in debt and a collaspe of the financial system like Russia had will probably occure first..

    Read More
    • Agree: renfro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Rich
    Stop reading Zinn. Now. He is a biased, Marxist historian who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint. By the time you finish that ridiculous book, based on your already anti-American leanings, you're going to hate the USA. No nation is perfect, but the US has tried, in most cases, to be a liberating force in the world. We didn't turn Japan and Germany into agrarian territories like some wanted. We didn't authorize the rape of every female from 8 to 80 like the Soviets did. There are more American Indians alive today, with full voting rights, than there were when Jamestown was founded. We didn't send our boys to Korea and Nam to conquer and enslave the people, we were there to protect them from the murderous Reds. If the dopes in Al Quaeda hadn't stupidly attacked the US, we wouldn't be in the Afghan or Iraq, either. The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them.

    The problem, I fear, is that Zinn does not write much else than I already knew from books like:
    Larry G. Gerber, ´The Limits of Liberalism, Josephus Daniels, Henry Stimson, Bernard Baruch, Donald Richberg, Felix Frankfurter and the Development of the Modern American Political Economy’, New York, London, 1984
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, I, The first thousand days’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, II, The inside struggle’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, III, The lowering clouds’, New York, 1954
    John F. Flynn, ‘Gold von Gott, Die Rockefeller-Saga’, Berlin 1937 (‘God’s Gold : The Story of Rockefeller and His Times’, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1932)
    Herbert Aptheker, ‘Negro Slave Revolts in the United States 1526 – 1860 ‘, New York 1939
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ‘Secrecy’, New Haven 1998
    Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
    Edwin E. Moïse, Tonkin Gulf and the escalation of the Vietnam War, 1996, London
    The list is far from complete.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Quite a list of leftists and all out Marxists you've got there, except for Mr Flynn. It explains you virulent anti-Americanism. Maybe you should try a couple of non-Marxist historians, or maybe just appreciate that instead of speaking Dutch, you'd be speaking German if the Americans hadn't come to save you. And you'd be speaking Russian if the Yanks hadn't stayed after the war.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Zinn, like Chomsky, can provide useful insights from a leftist perspective, but they have obvious blind spots about Israel, and Jewish power in general.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Hu Mi Yu

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information…anyone interested can start with wikipedia…and follow some of the references…

     

    I was oblivious to this war until I read the autobiography of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. If you want to understand the origins of modern China, this book is a must read.

    Puyi, From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi. Foreign Language Press, Beijing China: 1989 (no ISBN)

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.

    Really?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @dearieme
    Wasn't the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

    “Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?”

    Since when the Feds and Pentagon have been involved in philanthropy? Look at the smirking idiot Bush and the psychopathic Cheney; do they look like two decent human beings caring for humanity? – Not at all. They are the traitors to the US Constitution and to the humanity at large.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Rich says:
    @FB

    '...The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them...'
     
    I guess the whole world is now 'biting the hand that feeds them...'

    http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

    No less than a quarter of the world population thinks US is the biggest threat to world peace...

    Even funnier...13 percent of US agrees...

    In Canada it's 17 percent...and Mexico 34 percent...

    What a knee-slapper...even US neighbors biting that 'benevolent' hand...

    US wins the prize of biggest threat to peace by a mile...second place Pakistan gets only 8 percent...three times less than US...china at 6 percent...

    I guess they should all stop reading Zinn and other 'anti-American' books...?

    With all the anti-American propaganda that you, and a lot of others on this site swallow, I’m surprised it’s only 25% and I’m encouraged that it’s only 17% in Canada. Human nature, as it is, I can understand many people, like the Mexicans, being jealous of their wealthy neighbor. Still, they’ll do anything they can to get across the Rio Grande, won’t they? If, Heaven forbid, the Chicoms ever become the world’s sole superpower, people will be praying for the return of the very benevolent Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. peterAUS says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.
     
    hmmm. I'd say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.
    Saker says on his page he's studying theology. There's 3 Russian Orthodox monasteries on Mt. Athos he can go to navel gaze, and they really are the pros there.

    It is an altogether worthwhile and proper discussion for everyone to wonder why we have so many deployments, like in what world of even perfectly conventional Republicrat thinking does it make any sense that we are so deployed, in so many places. We will be stronger - deployed less.

    Another worthwhile question is why the hell anyone is talking about a 300 ship navy when we can't keep 1/3rd of the current one sailing and why 50% of its planes aren't flightworthy. Then there's the F35.

    All of those are good questions. A rarely deployed US military, with a smaller navy, with 1/3 of its ships deployed 100% of the time and in full readiness, with 80% of its planes flightworthy, is a military Russia has no stomach to test.

    But then - again - why the hell do we need to think about fighting Russia? Yes, yes - I know there are 20 answers and the response is: we shouldn't fight Russia, and Russia shouldn't fight us. It's in neither country's interests and only a damn fool thinks otherwise.

    As to Saker - and every, silly, little, puissant article he insists on publishing ... do this:

    Imagine you are a US Marine, Army Ranger, or other manner of deployed infantry or airmobile unit - and go ahead and imagine that it is in one of these deployments that do nothing at all for US interests - day to day you do your thing and you know what your thing is and so do your comrades - and every once in awhile there's a death in Yemen or Niger or Libya - and they are kind of like the exceptions that prove the rule, and meanwhile you know your thing, and you know what's going on, and you know how war works.

    And you know: Saker is completely full of it.

    hmmm. I’d say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.

    Well…..assuming that’s not a rhetorical question, how about this:

    There is a very well thought out reason.
    The execution is sometimes crude, but well managed. Offsets the crudeness, more or less. Clever, really.
    Takes some time and effort to get it here, but, you can’t miss it in time.

    There is actually a core reason and then, say, additional two reasons of less importance.

    And, of course, can’t spell them out. One of those “Internet chat” catches 22.

    But, with just a little bit of effort anyone can figure that out.
    A good exercise IMHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Michael Kenny
    The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    “…revisionists like Putin…” — And your opinion about your Bibi and our Trump? Peachy?
    Russia has been fighting for survival, for some 20 years, and not without some success. There were numerous attempts by Russian Federation to establish the normal and mutually fruitful relationships with the EU and US. Could you explain why the US has not been interested and the pitiful vassalage of Europe could not dare to have a voice on these matters?

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

    Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture: “Art, Truth & Politics”

    [MORE]

    “Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. … the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States’ actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.
    Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict’. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed…
    The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
    Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Andrei Martyanov

    US airforce/navy is stronger.
     
    US Navy, despite all its problems, is the strongest Navy in the world and by far. But it also has a fatal flaw. This, to a significant degree applies to US Air Force too. The issue with acquisition in US military is, indeed, clear and present danger to the US and it is only the fact of US superb geographic position that this gigantic flaw hasn't been demonstrated even more dramatically. This is how Colonel Davies was forced to admit it:

    The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe.
     
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-sobering-truth-about-the-pentagons-acquisition-failures-15138

    The problem is deeper than some collection of technologies, the problem is cultural and it cannot be changed.

    Geographic location has been America blessing so far. But considering changes you have been talking about and America never ending willingness to make bets may lead to USA sooner or later “winning” the lottery but not one American elites are looking for.it is a matter of enough bets made actually. Due to mentioned by you cultural thing America is reckless and is playing with fire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Rich
    Stop reading Zinn. Now. He is a biased, Marxist historian who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint. By the time you finish that ridiculous book, based on your already anti-American leanings, you're going to hate the USA. No nation is perfect, but the US has tried, in most cases, to be a liberating force in the world. We didn't turn Japan and Germany into agrarian territories like some wanted. We didn't authorize the rape of every female from 8 to 80 like the Soviets did. There are more American Indians alive today, with full voting rights, than there were when Jamestown was founded. We didn't send our boys to Korea and Nam to conquer and enslave the people, we were there to protect them from the murderous Reds. If the dopes in Al Quaeda hadn't stupidly attacked the US, we wouldn't be in the Afghan or Iraq, either. The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them.

    …who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint.

    How can you be so sure that history shouldn’t be re-written? By the rest of your comment, it looks as if you’ve swallowed nearly century old war propaganda as some sort of “history.”

    As late as 1958, then, [A.J.P.] Taylor clung as tenaciously as before to his Germanophobic line… [then he] began to investigate the documents, and as he did so, he began to realize the truth. The power of the truth, and his courageous recognition of the truth swept away all of his own biases and preconceptions

    … the Germans were morally right…

    -Murray N. Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J .P. Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961 — now New York: Athenaeum, 1962).

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Michael Kenny
    The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    In case you still do not understand the dynamics of ziocon/evangelical plans & actions in relation to Russia, here are the facts: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    “According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.
    The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.
    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.
    The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.
    The USSR developed its own atomic bomb in 1949, in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.
    On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes”

    Truman other infamy was “he got the Jewish money and the Jewish vote” http://rense.com/general77/truman.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.

    You actually believe this? Even Britain had a nuclear weapons program before the war started. They just merged it with ours to speed things up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Vidi says:
    @Cyrano
    Those “glorious” victories of US against Japan were nothing more than boat accidents, extra-proportionally glorified by American propaganda. Chew on this one for a while: US already had the nuclear bombs and Truman still begged Stalin to help him defeat Japan with a massive offensive in Manchuria. Which Stalin did.

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something. I am sending you a link too. Read and weep - at least someone in your country is still capable of publishing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

    USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well.

    Japan was fighting a Chinese insurgency as well; that may have prevented them from focusing on the USSR threat. The Chinese were fighting a bitter civil war, so they were unable repel the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. However, a guerilla war against the Japanese kept them busy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. renfro says:
    @Randal

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.
     

    That's seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world's workshop?

    If and when there were a "limited war" with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    The US no longer has the industrial base to produce the necessary war material.
    It has been almost entirely wiped out since GATT in 1966.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @RJJCDA
    The Dupuys, father and son, wrote a book NUMBERS, PREDICTIONS AND WAR some years ago and attempted, among other things, to evaluate military competence comparatively of the belligerents in WWII. They tried to factor in number of forces, power of weapons, supplys and other things; and arrived at evaluations absent those things which gave advantages/disadvantages in battles to one or the other:

    #1 Germans
    #2 Americans, British, Canadians
    #3 Russians, Japanese, Italians

    Does the Saker have a comment?

    The british, british americans, british australians should all be bringing up the rear alongside indians and french,according to a Japanese advisor during the ww2 who fought against all these people. British australian cowards anyone ,singapore surrender without much of a fight ring any bells .he he he.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Randal

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans
     
    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th - the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    Is that enough to win a war?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
     
    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

    The Americans never fought the Germans on anything like equal terms, they only entered the actual fray well after Germany’s fate was already sealed.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @renfro
    The Eisenhower Institute

    http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/about/living_history/wwii_soviet_experience.dot

    ''Studied without bias born of the Cold War, one can understand the Soviet description of the facts. Some historians of World War II suggest that by mid 1944 the USSR was strong enough to defeat Germany eventually, without any Anglo-American second front. With respect to the "practically no opposition" propaganda phrase it is also true that the Soviets, who routinely faced battles involving several hundred thousand soldiers on both sides, did not regard the 67,000 Germans defending Normandy on June 6th as serious opposition.iii To the Soviets, fighting 390,000 Germans in the area of a single city (Stalingrad) was meeting serious opposition
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. ondrej says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    In terms of spoken language Russian is by far more complex than chinese. Grammar alone is on different level. Modern Chinese grammar is basically very simple. When it comes to reading and writing it is obviously a different ball game. Chinese is far more difficult to master and requires years of hard daily study and never ending practice.

    Well, some argue based on legacy of Prague linguistic circle and Vygotsky, that spoken and written language are in fact two separate languages – means of communication.

    Making situation even bit more complex;-)

    In case you would find that interesting – Vygotsky: Мышление и речь, Thinking and Speech are interesting and not difficult to read…

    As for Russian as language of war, to me Russian military terminology is clear mirror of its millenium exchanges with various languages/military traditions – and it is bit mess (IMHO) .

    Sometimes it is even difficult to translate to very close language such as Czech:
    Often one can not find correct pair – word for certain terms, even when one can understand meaning due to shared history of language… which often in past resulted in just accepting some terns without translation..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    By the way I have been in Prague probably 4 times. I noticed many signs "Pozor". In Russian it is basically can be translated as shame, but I guessed it must be Attention in Chezh? If it is so, close slavic languages but quite a difference in samely pronounced word.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Lemurmaniac
    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual 'Pact of Steel' between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia's technical capital). That's why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn't really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin's vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington's European presence to the British Isles).

    It was a tragic event of history, in light of the current crisis, that Stalin’s ambitions got the better of him and that the Germans and Soviets did not remain allies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Erebus
    A "war" between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

    Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can't win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn't lose much should they be attacked.
    Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM's M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies' confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia's superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn't have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

    I don’t follow your argument; if the Russian force in Syria is too small to win, who is going to inflict the defeat on US forces that would be devastating to US imperial credibility?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    The Kalibr, X-101, and X-32(?) missile strikes, launched from a wide variety of platforms and locations may be rather expensive ways to spoil jihadi commanders' breakfast meetings, but they're a very cost-effective way of letting the US Central Command know that the Russian expeditionary force in Syria is not alone, or in any way "isolated".
    In fact, they demonstrate that the Russian expeditionary force is fully integrated into the entire Russian military complex, and that they will be defended from a wide variety of unassailable positions. The table turned around with the first Kalibr launch from the Caspian. Suddenly Central Command's theatre assets became more "isolated" than Russia's expeditionary force.

    From time to time, Russia sent reminders from TU-160s over the Urals & Iran, and surface & sub-surface shipping in the Med. Centcom understood the message and busied itself with betraying the Kurds.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. I think Russia has definite advantages such as jamming US ships and planes. There are also the weapons that rarely get mentioned. Space based weapons like the one that hit Tianjan. Then we have weaponised weather. I don’t think the US has seariously tried to win post WW2 wars. The designed 08 financial collapse was supposed to end the rise of China and bring down Russia. This failed so now we have sanctions and South China Sea topped off by North Korea. My guess is that Russia and China are waiting for the US to go bust which it will do as the petrodollar ends. The question is, does the cornered dying dog go out with a bang? It has taken me about 45 minutes to write this due to computer problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. Sean says:

    Very dangerous for Russia to think the US is only going to attack if Russia is weaker. Furthermore, there are mounting internal problems of Trump’s that muscling a strong Russia represents a solution to. Even if Russia had the military edge, Trump may have his own reasons for clashing with Russia., inasmuch he could make the people who call him a tool of Putin look silly.

    If the indictments get too close, Trump’s quickest and easier way out would be to go after Iran as a way of drawing Putin into warning America off. Trump could then threaten him back; take out Iran; and look like a solid president who takes no guff from foreign twerps. Risky, but Trump will do it if push comes to shove.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  157. Russian weapon systems designed by soldiers for soldiers

    Russian weapon systems are designed by Americans which they then copy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  158. Cyrano says:
    @anonymous
    Sheesh! All this chatter of each other’s superiority over weapons of mass destruction! Like killing and maiming people in the hundreds of millions is something to aspire towards? It is not like those weapons have never been used too... and, if not sure, you may want to look up who used them.

    What a sickening bunch of satanic degenerates, many of those living in pale-faced societies are…

    And then infidels scoff snidely at the quote/unquote, peaceful religion? Can you genius intellectuals find any irony in that?

    Anyway, if not for the machinations of the white supremacist ChrizzyJuden evildoers, the quote/unquote peaceful religion would actually prove to be no more or no less peaceful than others... considering that it is simply being followed by fallible humans.

    Not so the Chrizzies and the Juden though, who have taken evil to an awesomely different level.

    Yeah, and you are model citizens, aren’t you? “Chrizzies” never tried to forcibly convert the Muzzies to their religion, probably aware that there is no use. The Muzzies actually did use force to convert Chrizzies to their religion. Ever heard of Janissaries – wonderful practice by the Muzzies of stealing Chrizzies children and training them to be ruthless warriors, never knowing their families or their roots. Pure humanity. Don’t try to teach me who is more evil, you’re going to have to find some other audience for that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Andrei Martyanov

    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?
     
    Nothing special, really. He was a division commander at Kursk, he certainly was not a dummy and was an experienced officer, but his emergence to the operational top of Wehrmacht coincided with this very Wehrmacht's decline due to fighting the Red Army.

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.
     
    True, movie Patton (and George C. Scott is one of my favorite actors of all time) is one of the greatest Hollywood fairy tales ever made--insulting in its misrepresentation of the real war and the role of Commanders in it. Patton himself was the greatest PR general in military history. His delusion is excellently demonstrated in his conversation with US Army Undersecretary Patterson in May 1945--his monologue is not a monologue of mentally adequate person. Somehow Eisenhower never merited a good movie about himself (with the exception of a second-tier unnoticed picture with Tom Selleck), nor Omar Bradly has any movie about himself, but he certainly deserved one. Nor will Americans ever see movie about Gerow's V Corps.

    Enjoy your comments! I’m no huge fan of Patton myself, and Rick Atkinson’s books paint a picture of a talented but very erratic personality, who probably reached his highest “level of competence” as a corps commander. Or as Omar Bradley said of George Patton: “The oddest duck I ever meant.

    I thought there was also a movie about Ike in which he as portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Douglas MacArthur has had at least one movie made about him. Too bad no cinematic depiction of the much more competent Chester Nimitz, or maybe Raymond Spruance.

    As fun as it is to exchange views on WWII, I am increasingly depressed by the sheer tragedy of the first half of the 20th Century. The spectacle of Europeans and European-origin people killing each other in large numbers is well, just damned depressing! Do we now have the execrable Theresa May and Angela Merkel beccause of the losses on the Somme or at Stalingrad? I’m originally from Iowa and one loss of WWII was Nile Kinnock–Heisman Trophy winner and Sportsman of the Year in 1939. People who knew him said that he would have had a good chance to be Iowa governor. He died in a training accident in 1942.

    On the subject of the Saker’s original article, well that’s another tragedy. The U.S. and Russia have no real differences that need be resolved by bows and arrows, let alone F-35s and Sukhois.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    As fun as it is to exchange views on WWII, I am increasingly depressed by the sheer tragedy of the first half of the 20th Century. The spectacle of Europeans and European-origin people killing each other in large numbers is well, just damned depressing!
     
    Agree, 100%.

    On the subject of the Saker’s original article, well that’s another tragedy. The U.S. and Russia have no real differences that need be resolved by bows and arrows, let alone F-35s and Sukhois.
     
    Esteemed Ambassador Jack Matlock speaks precisely about it on this conference, On Friday:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/live-u-s-foreign-policy-in-the-trump-era/

    I would offer another paradoxical thought that US and Russia are natural geopolitical allies, but, sadly, this ship sailed too, at least for awhile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. renfro says:
    @Ron Unz
    As a non-military expert, one thing that strikes me is the near-perfect fit between the existing strengths of Russia and China, which are currently in a loose quasi-alliance against the general bullying of The American Empire.

    Obviously, Russia has vast natural resources, including energy, while China has the world's largest industrial base, which requires such resources and energy supplies. But this ideal meshing also seems particularly strong in military matters.

    Based on this article and a few previous ones, it sounds like Russia has achieved considerable superiority to America in various aspects of advanced military technology, much more so than China. But Russia's industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn't hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    However, China's industrial production base is considerably larger than America's, and if it were geared up in producing Russian military-designs (which obviously Russia would be loathe to provide) it would easily beat America in the War of Production.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can't be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

    Russia has a national strategy for who it allies with. All the US has is Israel, which isn’t even an ally, its the scorpion on the frogs back.

    2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-03/21/content_548330.htm

    [MORE]

    Article 8
    The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
    Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
    Article 9
    When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
    Article 11
    The contracting parties stand for the strict observation of universally acknowledged principles and norms of international laws and oppose any action of resorting to the use of force to bring pressure to bear on others or interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state under all sorts of pretexts and both are ready to make positive efforts to strengthen peace, stability, development and cooperation throughout the world.
    The contracting parties are against any action which may constitute a threat to international stability, security and peace and will conduct mutual co-ordination with regard to the prevention of international conflicts and bringing about their political settlement.
    Article l6
    On the basis of mutual benefit, the contracting parties shall conduct cooperation in such areas as economy and trade, military know-how, science and technology, energy resources, transport, nuclear energy, finance, aerospace and aviation, information technology and other areas of common interest. They shall promote economic and trade cooperation in border areas and local regions between the two countries and create necessary and favorable conditions in this regard in accordance with the laws of each country

    2015
    Russia Signs Military Cooperation Deal with Iran

    2016
    Iran and China sign military cooperation agreement

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Rich
    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There's six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn't mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

    Team America vs Team Russia. Talk about a battle of idiots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Ondrej says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Nice theory but way too optimistic.
     
    No, it has nothing to do with "optimism" or otherwise. Erebus is spot on in giving a subject the treatment he gave. Not only it is legitimate but it is highly probable. Now comes my personal experiences with many things military, including with foreign (Arab, African etc.) cadets and officers--all so called "command words" (there is a special book dedicated to that) for their trainees were strictly Russian, the same as they were taught in Russian. Not because Russians are chauvinists but precisely because of the issue which Erebus described. Many Arab militaries, as an example, continued to use Russian language in combat for a reason. Try to teach calculus or combat system integration in Swahili, good luck with that. But here we are getting into a very specific subject.

    I have heard similar stories for fighter pilots of Arab countries trained at Czechoslovakia Flight Academy (now Slovakia – Košice) or by Czechoslovak instructors in their countries.

    But, if it was true I do not know…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @hunor
    stupid

    Yes, he is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @FB

    '...The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them...'
     
    I guess the whole world is now 'biting the hand that feeds them...'

    http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

    No less than a quarter of the world population thinks US is the biggest threat to world peace...

    Even funnier...13 percent of US agrees...

    In Canada it's 17 percent...and Mexico 34 percent...

    What a knee-slapper...even US neighbors biting that 'benevolent' hand...

    US wins the prize of biggest threat to peace by a mile...second place Pakistan gets only 8 percent...three times less than US...china at 6 percent...

    I guess they should all stop reading Zinn and other 'anti-American' books...?

    Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. America is the lap-dog, ultimately.

    Read More
    • Agree: renfro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. FB says:
    @Michael Kenny
    The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    ‘…Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further!…’

    Interesting…

    And this US lead of two to three generations in technology includes the scramjet engine, about which I wrote in the above comment…

    Ie…supersonic combusting ramjet engine which powers the hypersonic Zircon missile…while US scramjet technology is still in the lab stage…

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    Would be very interested in hearing your ‘expert’ comment…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Those things are so fast at low altitude, do they not have radome troubles at the nose-end?
    , @Carlton Meyer
    Scramjet is BS due to skin heating, mass fraction, and maneuverability drawbacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Jim Christian

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.
     
    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I've been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.

    That said, that they're wringing the last nickels out of the currently obsolete constitution of our forces knowing they have the next generation in their back pockets already, is rather reprehensible. The Osprey, the F-35, the Gerald Ford, all of them, massive and deadly corruptions, fatally flawed and VERY expensive and really, they offer no explanation, there's no obvious justification for these failures outside of the fact they were moneymakers. And they build these in spite of knowing their obsolescence. But I'm not certain they don't have new toys in the box that will out-fox the toys of other States. The American defense contractor is a sneaky bastard at that..

    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I’ve been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.

    Sorry I missed your post and didn’t answer promptly. You, certainly, have a point and I am not insisting on being absolutely right. I merely try to present a compelling argument. What you described in terms of 70s–pretty much same was case in Soviet Union. In the end, Soviet war in Afghanistan saw limited but not insignificant use of PGMs, from TV to laser-guided munitions. That was early 1980s and R&D on that was since late 1950s, actually. With US things started to go downhill namely in 1980s, especially as the gap in submarines was closed pretty much. Once the ability to process very large arrays of information was in place–game changed. What it is today we all, of course, may only speculate about.

    I, however, liked this observation of yours. From your other post:

    And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They’re having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Here, you nailed it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Many young American men are still virile, normal, patriotic, sensible males who deeply love their nation and their girls and children and communities back home, and have the ability and willingness to fight, persevere, suffer, and win.

    But I’ll agree that I see many younger Americans in LA, DC, and other major cities who lack all those qualities. They have priorities, lifestyles, and views that range from the foolish and puerile to the disgusting. For the most part, they are part of the Democrat coalition of the freaks and fringes —people for whom the core nation of Americans are just people to be mocked and fleeced to pay for their own dispossession by alien hordes.
    , @RadicalCenter
    P.S. One thing I have come to respect and admire about Russians is that they know who they are and where they come from, and they are not ashamed to be who they are.

    Like Americans, Russians believe some myths about themselves and sometimes make excuses for their past wrongs. But Russians, it seems, don’t let themselves be demoralized by a one-sided recounting of history that focuses disproportionately on the negative and makes all other peoples sound saintly by comparison.

    We remaining real and realistic Americans know that Russia need not be our enemy. Just as Russia needed to learn from the West, we in the morally confused, self-hating, declining, homosexualized, indulgent, increasing indolent West now need to learn from Russia — and, wherever possible, make a partner and eventually a friend of Russia.

    God bless and keep both our nations safe from every evil. Including the evil residing in our governments, especially the US government in recent years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Rich says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The problem, I fear, is that Zinn does not write much else than I already knew from books like:
    Larry G. Gerber, ´The Limits of Liberalism, Josephus Daniels, Henry Stimson, Bernard Baruch, Donald Richberg, Felix Frankfurter and the Development of the Modern American Political Economy’, New York, London, 1984
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, I, The first thousand days’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, II, The inside struggle’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, III, The lowering clouds’, New York, 1954
    John F. Flynn, ‘Gold von Gott, Die Rockefeller-Saga’, Berlin 1937 (‘God's Gold : The Story of Rockefeller and His Times’, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1932)
    Herbert Aptheker, 'Negro Slave Revolts in the United States 1526 - 1860 ', New York 1939
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ‘Secrecy’, New Haven 1998
    Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
    Edwin E. Moïse, Tonkin Gulf and the escalation of the Vietnam War, 1996, London
    The list is far from complete.

    Quite a list of leftists and all out Marxists you’ve got there, except for Mr Flynn. It explains you virulent anti-Americanism. Maybe you should try a couple of non-Marxist historians, or maybe just appreciate that instead of speaking Dutch, you’d be speaking German if the Americans hadn’t come to save you. And you’d be speaking Russian if the Yanks hadn’t stayed after the war.

    Read More
    • Troll: FB
    • Replies: @Begemot
    Mr. Dykstra is instead speaking English, the language of the current conqueror.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Avery says:
    @Cyrano
    Your version of the events is more factually accurate than mine. Mine is only a speculation. I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy and that he would make such a huge gamble based on that - leaving the far east exposed.

    I think that he must have had some other assurances from other sources. I know what you are saying, that Sorge established his credentials by being correct about the German attack, so Stalin trusted him the second time around about his intel of the Japanese intentions.

    { I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy….}

    I agree: Stalin was too cautious and paranoid to trust just one man, even if Sorge was right about Nazi invasion. So Stalin must have had other confirmation, which would be prudent. Sorge told him first, and Stalin had it confirmed by other means.

    It’s just a speculation on my part, but possibly Stalin’s other spies in Nazi Germany confirmed it: Japan being an ally of Nazi Germany, Japanese may have told Hitler not to expect a Japanese invasion from the East. Remember that Sorge was a spy in Japan when he found out about Hitler’s plan to invade SU. Germans must have told Japanese leaders, probably hoping Japan would invade from the East same time Germany invaded from the West.

    Or, maybe Soviet military intelligence confirmed it by observing the movement or non-movement of various Japanese military assets to particular staging sites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @jilles dykstra
    Correct
    WWII was won by mass USA production and Russian blood.
    The west did not have the V1, the V2, the German Tiger tank was far better than any other, and the German hydrogen bomb was nearly ready.
    I refused to believe the hydrogen bomb until I read the book.
    The hydrogen was ignited by conventional explosives.
    Two converted planes were in Prague to carry the bomb east, it was a sphere a metre in diameter.
    This bomb may explain why Hitler fought to the last moment.
    Just imagine a few V2's with this bomb, each one obliterating a few square kilometres of London.
    Rudel, Germany's best pilot, already in 1956 wrote about the atomic bomb he should fly to the Ural hydro electric installations, to stop USSR tank production.
    Germany also had TV guided missiles.

    At present there is the story about a USA very modern warship in the Black Sea, unable to respond to a very low and ver near fly by by an unarmed Russian plane, because this plane disabled all the ship's systems.
    Then we have MH370, lost somewhere in the direction of the Antarctic.
    The USA is on top of my suspect list, media never mentioned this, but on the plane were two groups of Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible to radar.
    Then there is the asserted Chinese quantum computer, installed in a satellite, the emissions can not be heard or decrypted.

    Germany was neither remotely close to an atomic bomb nor a hydrogen bomb. They were researching in the wrong direction. Japan on the other hand actually tested a very feeble A-bomb between the drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Interesting, what’s the citation for the Japanese test?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Some observations

    1) Russian airframes may well be better, on average, at dog fighting but engine fuel use is enormous so only near base. Dogfighting is dead anyway now the F35 is here.

    2) The Armata tank (currently built around French technology) is not due for production until 2030. It uses reactive armour which will slaughter supporting infantry and trigger counterattacks from reactive armour on nearby tanks.

    and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...Russian airframes may well be better, on average, at dog fighting but engine fuel use is enormous so only near base...'
     
    Interesting...

    And you have some citations to back this up I suppose...?

    You may have missed my earlier comment about jet engine technology in this thread...

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    Would be pleased to engage in specifics on the point of fuel consumption in jet engines...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Ondrej says:
    @Erebus

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.
     
    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is "Yes, with Chinese characteristics". In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they'll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35's systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can't be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a "cookbook" understanding of the machine. It's a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he's gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can't be thinking in Chinese. He's gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There's also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to "get it" as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money's worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an "all Russian" program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.


    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I'm pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.

    expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they’ll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    You mean something like this?
    In this case, It looks like train already left station long ago.
    Can you for example recognize girls allegiance by their uniform ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I see "Vstavai strana ogromnaya"- RISE UP GREAT COUNTRY in Chinese. Qi lai weida de guo jia. Really, there was"Podmoskovnie vechera" in Chinese and other dongs. It has been since 1950's.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Avery says:
    @FB

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don’t give a promise to your enemy.
     
    Actually there was...The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact...signed in 1941...and honored by both sides...

    For instance when B29 bomber crews had to make emergency landings in Russia's far east...Stalin didn't let the air crews go...even though US was an ally...

    He made sure to keep them for a few months then secretly spirited them through to Iran, which was on Russia's Caucasus border...and which was jointly run by Russia and US during the war...

    Cyrano is correct that the Japs didn't want to tangle with Uncle Joe after they were quickly rolled back in their attempts to invade Soviet territory in the far east...

    About the lengthy comments re Battle of Bulge [Ardennes]...

    Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees...Battle of Kursk dwarfed the Battle of the Bulge in both size and importance...

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/wwiis-greatest-battle-how-kursk-changed-the-war

    '...After their defeat at Kursk, the Germans never again looked like they might win the war on the Eastern Front, the theater that held the key to overall victory in the war...'
     

    {Actually there was…The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact…signed in 1941…and honored by both sides…}

    1939 August: Germany-USSR non-aggression pact.
    1940 September: Germany-Japan-Italy Tripartite pact.
    1941 April: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact.

    Despite the non-aggression pact between Germany and SU, Nazi Germany invaded SU in June 1941.

    Stalin was not someone to put his trust on a piece of paper, particularly after Hitler spat on it and invaded anyway. If Stalin had put any stock on a piece of pare, he would not keep badly needed troops, tanks, and airplanes in Siberia. He kept them there, because he prudently considered the possibility that Japan would invade – neutrality pact or no pact. Those Siberian troops arrived just in time to turn the tide of the Battle of Moscow. It was very close: without those fresh, tough Siberian troops Germans may have broken through.

    {….…and honored by both sides…}

    Are you serious?
    Is that why SU invaded Manchuria and totally routed the Imperial Japanese?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Ondrej

    expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they’ll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.
     
    You mean something like this?
    In this case, It looks like train already left station long ago.
    Can you for example recognize girls allegiance by their uniform ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1L-Jfhq2IQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSPQLI1EFo4

    I see “Vstavai strana ogromnaya”- RISE UP GREAT COUNTRY in Chinese. Qi lai weida de guo jia. Really, there was”Podmoskovnie vechera” in Chinese and other dongs. It has been since 1950′s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @ondrej
    Well, some argue based on legacy of Prague linguistic circle and Vygotsky, that spoken and written language are in fact two separate languages - means of communication.

    Making situation even bit more complex;-)

    In case you would find that interesting - Vygotsky: Мышление и речь, Thinking and Speech are interesting and not difficult to read...

    As for Russian as language of war, to me Russian military terminology is clear mirror of its millenium exchanges with various languages/military traditions - and it is bit mess (IMHO) .

    Sometimes it is even difficult to translate to very close language such as Czech:
    Often one can not find correct pair - word for certain terms, even when one can understand meaning due to shared history of language... which often in past resulted in just accepting some terns without translation..

    By the way I have been in Prague probably 4 times. I noticed many signs “Pozor”. In Russian it is basically can be translated as shame, but I guessed it must be Attention in Chezh? If it is so, close slavic languages but quite a difference in samely pronounced word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ondrej
    Correct, ussualy pozor=vnimanije, there are few tricky words like these in between Slavic languages.

    Another words ужас - úžas in Russian it has usually negative meaning in Czech mostly positive, but in some context it works for both languages same way..

    But it is often interesting, for example komnata, is originally Czech word, but nowadays you hear it only in old Czech fairly tales, another is military rota, it is believed it came from hussites to Russian language but originally german.. AFAIK it is used only in Czech and Russian language.
    On other hand Czech word vzduch=воздух was taken from Russian language at 19. century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. MarkinLA says:
    @Cyrano
    All right, how about this: The whole theory that US used atomic bombs in order to save millions of US and Japanese lives is obviously pure bunkum . They almost convinced the world of their humanism with that one. That whole formula is baloney.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army - instead of terrorizing the civilians - they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    If you ask me for my opinion, I think that it was unfair on the part of USSR to do that. They didn’t owe the US that big of a favor, and Japan didn’t deserve that from USSR.

    In the winter of 1941 when the fate of Moscow was hanging in the balance, and maybe even the fate of the USSR, 500 000 Red Army troops were transferred from the far east – who were there to deal with potential Japanese threat – to Moscow. Those 1/2 Million men pretty match tipped the balance in favor of the defenders of Moscow.

    And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east. I actually feel sorry for the Japanese, they didn’t deserve that. But maybe is all for the better, if the Red Army didn’t defeat the Japanese Army, maybe the Americans would have felt compelled to use even more atomic bombs and more cities and civilians would have suffered the terrible fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the Americans obviously lacked the ability to put together a force to fight the Japanese army and using more atomic bombs would have been the easy way.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army – instead of terrorizing the civilians – they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    The purpose of fighting a war is to get some countries government to capitulate to your demands. The US could have simply used the US Navy and Army Air Force to strangle the Japanese home islands and there was NOTHING that Japanese Army in Manchuria could do about it.

    Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost. If FDR had realize that he would have total naval and air superiority over Japan and decided to starve them out he could have chosen to do so but the US would have had to stay in a state of war for 5 years bombing cities and destroying farmland while millions of Japanese starved to death waiting for their government to realize the hopelessness of their situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost."

    It is always a mistake after the fact and after someone did the job that you could not.
    , @Cyrano

    The US could have simply used the US Navy and Army Air Force to strangle the Japanese home islands
     
    The “strangulation” method was applied to Japan since before Pearl Harbor – actually that’s why Japan attacked US.

    There was some economic blockade going on against Japan before Pearl Harbor, probably under some phony pretense like Japan is not democratic enough, or the human rights of the Geishas were being violated, whatever phony excuse they could come up at that moment.

    Obviously the boa constrictor type strangulation was not as effective killing method as the bear claw swipe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. MarkinLA says:
    @jilles dykstra
    In the sixties there was a congressional investigation about the why of two atomic bombs on Japan.
    Oppenheimer testified that they wanted to see what the bombs did in reality.
    Through Stalin Japan already had offered capitalation in Januari 1945.
    Much later Stalin told Truman, and asked what he should do.
    Truman: nothing.

    Japan was offering conditional surrender. When FDR blundered and made his unconditional surrender demand, Truman probably couldn’t accept less. The US for the sake of keeping the peace in post-war Japan pretty much gave Japan what they were asking for anyway – keeping the Emperor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    The Emperor's large palace compound was never bombed while the rest of Tokyo was destroyed. The Emperor negotiated the surrender of Japan despite opposition by his army. The Emperor was untouched to live in luxury after the war. So why does anyone believe this was an unconditional surrender? Of course the USA was publicly committed to that by an FDR speech, but a secret deal saved millions of lives. I have no proof as ultra-secret deals are not made public, but I do have proof by the evidence noted above.
    , @jilles dykstra
    FDR did not at all blunder, it was deliberate.
    What Truman indeed accepted was more or less what was offered in januari 1945, the Emperor could stay.
    Germany was in fact the only country where the unconditional surrender was applied, also in Italy there was compromise:
    Mario Toscano, 'Designs in Diplomacy, Pages from European Diplomatic History in the Twentieth Century', 1970 Baltimore
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. MarkinLA says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Correct
    WWII was won by mass USA production and Russian blood.
    The west did not have the V1, the V2, the German Tiger tank was far better than any other, and the German hydrogen bomb was nearly ready.
    I refused to believe the hydrogen bomb until I read the book.
    The hydrogen was ignited by conventional explosives.
    Two converted planes were in Prague to carry the bomb east, it was a sphere a metre in diameter.
    This bomb may explain why Hitler fought to the last moment.
    Just imagine a few V2's with this bomb, each one obliterating a few square kilometres of London.
    Rudel, Germany's best pilot, already in 1956 wrote about the atomic bomb he should fly to the Ural hydro electric installations, to stop USSR tank production.
    Germany also had TV guided missiles.

    At present there is the story about a USA very modern warship in the Black Sea, unable to respond to a very low and ver near fly by by an unarmed Russian plane, because this plane disabled all the ship's systems.
    Then we have MH370, lost somewhere in the direction of the Antarctic.
    The USA is on top of my suspect list, media never mentioned this, but on the plane were two groups of Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible to radar.
    Then there is the asserted Chinese quantum computer, installed in a satellite, the emissions can not be heard or decrypted.

    I don’t think you can get the temperatures or pressures required to ignite a hydrogen bomb. If you could there would have been plenty of clandestine programs in places like Iraq since you would not need centrifuges or reactors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    It is not physically impossibe, but technically very difficult.
    What I understand from the book is that a resonance did the trick, but not always.
    Rainer Karlsch, 'Hitlers Bom, Hoe Nazi-Duitsland nucleaire wapens testte in een wanhopige poging om de oorlog te winnen, Tielt, 2005 (Hitlers Bombe, München)
    Do not know if a translation in english exists.
    It is a well researched book, there is an interview with a representative of Mussolini who saw a succesfull test, there are interviews with people in neigbbouring villages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    In case you still do not understand the dynamics of ziocon/evangelical plans & actions in relation to Russia, here are the facts: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    "According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.
    The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.
    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.
    The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.
    The USSR developed its own atomic bomb in 1949, in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.
    On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes"

    Truman other infamy was "he got the Jewish money and the Jewish vote" http://rense.com/general77/truman.htm

    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.

    You actually believe this? Even Britain had a nuclear weapons program before the war started. They just merged it with ours to speed things up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    There is even the rumor that Hitler's attack on Denmark and Sweden was, in part, an attempt to deprive the allies of nuclear technology from Nils Bohr's lab in Denmark and the Heavy Water plant in Norway, and to seize it for himself. Also the attack on France, as France's attempt to purchase Norwegian Heavy water production for several years into the future could be interpreted by German Intelligence as an attempt to deprive the Germans of nuclear materials while using it to develop their own bombs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. renfro says:
    @Michael Kenny
    The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    You should wish the US had a leader as smart as Putin.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

    Putin Pays off all USSR Debt
    Paying back $60bn of USSR debt with the latest payment of 22bn owed to the 17 Paris Club creditors.

    Russia paid off all its debt—the US otoh is swimming in debt …..6% of US income (taxes) goes to pay interest on that debt last time I checked, probably higher now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Putin is a true statesman. Always striking to compare his intelligent responses to any number of policy issues, to American politicians, who can barely mouth mindless platitudes without a teleprompter.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I would have been glad to have a president as pragmatic, sensible, knowledgeable, credible, and effective as Putin, compared to the liars and losers who have been “my” presidents: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, CIA I mean bush senior, and then God help us Junior Bush and Obama.

    Compared to Putin who played an initially weak hand very well, my presidents wasted American lives, racked up enormous debt, incurred well-justified international hatred, and generally exhibited no long term thinking, no sense of the reality of limited resources, no sense of honor, no loyalty to their own people, and no sense of what WORKS in this world. Trump, we shall see.

    Good luck, Presidents Trump and Putin. God bless both our great nations and keep us from war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Rich
    WWI was fought to a standstill until the arrival of fresh American troops. Had the US not entered the war, the Germans wouldn't have had to surrender and there could have been a reasonable peace treaty that probably would have prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII.

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn't joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would've been able to hang on "by their fingernails" or that the Soviets would've been able to "expel" and "conquer" the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They'd be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn't entered WWII.

    The defeat of Japan had very little to do with the Japanese Army being "tied down in China". The Japanese would have had no problem with China if the US had not been bombing and burning them from the Pacific. It was the American Navy, mostly, that defeated the Japanese, so the Japanese Army, which had success only against people with poorly armed militaries, had little role to play against the Americans.

    Britain in the 30′s was pacifist. The first spitfire wasn’t produced until after Munich. Merlin engine powered fighter planes were the only effective weapons the UK had in 1940. But even in 1940, the UK started to out produce Germany in every class of weapon: planes, ships and tanks, without counting Canada. Assuming USSR stayed neutral, the British Empire would have eventually beaten Germany in a straight fight. The UK didn’t have a strategic bomber in action until 1942. Build up takes time. More money, more men (5 million Indians volunteered for the army), more weapons, more oil to fuel jet engines. USSR neutrality mattered. USSR supplied Germany with rubber the most critical raw material for Germany. Make a plane or a car or even wheels for a decent horse cart without rubber? The UK was also on the right track for an A bomb, unlike the Germans.

    The USSR was forced into the fight by Germany and Japan expanded its war to attack the US and the UK so it wasn’t a straight fight. Canadian Valentine tanks diverted in mid ocean from the UK were defending Moscow by December 1941. The US clearly shortened the war by 3 or 4 years but the UK could hold Germany back and blockade it and UK/Russia could defeat it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Maybe, I wouldn't have bet on it, though. Without the US, would the Brits have bothered to keep fighting if the Nazis had given them a pass? I'm pretty sure there would have been no D-Day without the US and if the Germans didn't have the pesky Allies in North Africa, the Atlantic and Western Europe to deal with, I think the Germans would have defeated the Soviets.

    Of course it was a concerted effort to defeat the Nazis and without the Western Front, led by the US, I believe the Germans would have gotten their Lebensraum. The Soviets were on their heels before the US entry and the Brits were alone as a free nation in Western Europe. The US was the stick that broke the German camel's back. Many of the commenters here have a major dislike of the US, though, and want to give all the credit to their Communist heroes. I strongly disagree with that.
    , @jilles dykstra
    What one sees as pacifist.
    The British problem was that maintaining the empire had bcome too costly:
    Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
    Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, 'TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940', New York, 1963
    It was financially impossible to secure both the Mediterranean, the gateway to the East, and the East itself.
    I wonder if the USA is now in a comparable position.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Without the USA, Germany would have thrashed, occupied, and settled the “United Kingdom.” Please.

    And we should have let them.

    Or is “great” britain’s Islamic future superior to what would have existed under German rule?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. renfro says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    The Americans never fought the Germans on anything like equal terms, they only entered the actual fray well after Germany’s fate was already sealed.

    The Eisenhower Institute

    http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/about/living_history/wwii_soviet_experience.dot

    ”Studied without bias born of the Cold War, one can understand the Soviet description of the facts. Some historians of World War II suggest that by mid 1944 the USSR was strong enough to defeat Germany eventually, without any Anglo-American second front. With respect to the “practically no opposition” propaganda phrase it is also true that the Soviets, who routinely faced battles involving several hundred thousand soldiers on both sides, did not regard the 67,000 Germans defending Normandy on June 6th as serious opposition.iii To the Soviets, fighting 390,000 Germans in the area of a single city (Stalingrad) was meeting serious opposition

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Philip Owen
    Germany was neither remotely close to an atomic bomb nor a hydrogen bomb. They were researching in the wrong direction. Japan on the other hand actually tested a very feeble A-bomb between the drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Interesting, what’s the citation for the Japanese test?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    It was something I read years ago and have no reference to now. Wikipaedia mentions a claim of one but it does not fit the description I remember. The article I remember was a test on a small island in the Japanese home archipalego.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Reports_of_a_Japanese_weapon_test
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Narwan says:
    @Randal

    To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Alas, I don’t.
     
    And the reality is that anybody who has access to the former has only limited access to the latter, and vice versa. So all claims of certainty in this kind of assessment should be viewed with great scepticism. That's not all that important when we're just debating whose speculative analysis is the more convincing, but it becomes vital when people are trying to insist that a particular war can safely be fought - such as the likes of Bannon and the parts of the US military establishment who insist that a "limited war" with China can safely be fought now, and supposedly must be fought in the next few years because after that it will be too late for it to be safely fought. The latter is true, but the greatest and best experts on the planet can't say with any confidence what the outcome of even a "limited war" with China would be, nor give any plausible guarantee that their limits would be observed.

    Such men - which evidently by his own words includes Bannon, should absolutely be kept out of government as a matter of the highest priority.


    Typically, when presented with evidence that the USAF, USN and NATO could not even defeat the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo.......If we accept Clausewitz’s thesis that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” then it becomes clear that the US has not won a real war in a long, long time
     
    Seem to be a double standard here. If the Serbians were "not defeated" when they fought the NATO air forces to a standstill but lost Kosovo, which was what they were fighting over, then the US was not defeated in Iraq when it destroyed the Iraqi military and occupied the county but failed subsequently to impose a fully subordinate government on the country, or when it successfully engineered the overthrow of the Taliban and gained free access to Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda there but failed to make the country safe for feminists and American-style gays afterwards.

    The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless
     
    An argument against any need for nuclear weapons best put forward, in my experience (and I don't except the British CND, who included Bertrand Russell amongst their ranks), by Iran's Ahmadinejad. Personally I'm with Saker on this and I'd still want my country to have a nuclear deterrent, but it's quite plausible that Iran's elite does not agree.

    Serbia didn’t lose Kosovo due to the war with Nato. It actually withdrew under a UN resolution which explicitly aknowledged Kososvo as part of Serbia.
    Unfortunately for the Serbs (and the rest of the world) the US and its european lackeys then later reneged on this deal. Once again showing that they are absolutely untrustworthy and that when national security is at stake you should never make a diplomatic deal with the US (such as giving up WMD’s).
    NATO was defeated on the field. It was through its usual nefarious diplomatic dealings that they later ‘gained’ Kosovo (although legally Kosovo is not independent but still part of Serbia).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @MarkinLA
    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army – instead of terrorizing the civilians – they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    The purpose of fighting a war is to get some countries government to capitulate to your demands. The US could have simply used the US Navy and Army Air Force to strangle the Japanese home islands and there was NOTHING that Japanese Army in Manchuria could do about it.

    Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost. If FDR had realize that he would have total naval and air superiority over Japan and decided to starve them out he could have chosen to do so but the US would have had to stay in a state of war for 5 years bombing cities and destroying farmland while millions of Japanese starved to death waiting for their government to realize the hopelessness of their situation.

    “Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost.”

    It is always a mistake after the fact and after someone did the job that you could not.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB, Cyrano
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    This is a stupid comment as the war in Manchuria had nothing to do with the Japanese surrender. The Japanese military was against surrender even after the atomic bombs were dropped and the civilian authorities were for it so the government was deadlocked. The Emperor broke the tie. In the Emperor's speech to the Japanese people he said nothing about the war in Manchuria and only about the US and it's use of a cruel weapon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. ondrej says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    By the way I have been in Prague probably 4 times. I noticed many signs "Pozor". In Russian it is basically can be translated as shame, but I guessed it must be Attention in Chezh? If it is so, close slavic languages but quite a difference in samely pronounced word.

    Correct, ussualy pozor=vnimanije, there are few tricky words like these in between Slavic languages.

    Another words ужас – úžas in Russian it has usually negative meaning in Czech mostly positive, but in some context it works for both languages same way..

    But it is often interesting, for example komnata, is originally Czech word, but nowadays you hear it only in old Czech fairly tales, another is military rota, it is believed it came from hussites to Russian language but originally german.. AFAIK it is used only in Czech and Russian language.
    On other hand Czech word vzduch=воздух was taken from Russian language at 19. century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. MarkinLA says:

    did not regard the 67,000 Germans defending Normandy on June 6th as serious opposition.

    You cannot compare what is needed to defend against an amphibious assault to what happens on a large open plain where you can be outflanked. You also have to remember the huge disinformation campaign to fool the Germans into thinking the main landing would be at Calais making sure the Germans would be below the strength needed to repel the invasion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  187. FB says:
    @Philip Owen
    Some observations

    1) Russian airframes may well be better, on average, at dog fighting but engine fuel use is enormous so only near base. Dogfighting is dead anyway now the F35 is here.

    2) The Armata tank (currently built around French technology) is not due for production until 2030. It uses reactive armour which will slaughter supporting infantry and trigger counterattacks from reactive armour on nearby tanks.

    and so on.

    ‘…Russian airframes may well be better, on average, at dog fighting but engine fuel use is enormous so only near base…’

    Interesting…

    And you have some citations to back this up I suppose…?

    You may have missed my earlier comment about jet engine technology in this thread…

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    Would be pleased to engage in specifics on the point of fuel consumption in jet engines…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Discussions with jet fuel suppliers near Engels. Also the son of Brezhnev's pilot.
    , @Anonymous
    Fuel efficiency in gas turbines tends to be a function of how high a turbine inlet temperature can be maintained, since from Carnot, thermodynamic efficiency goes up with the difference in temperature available. Russian airframes are often pretty well made but Russian/WarPac jet engines have always far lagged behind Western ones in fuel efficiency and allowable time between overhauls. Russian metallurgy has never been as good (despite ready access to the raw materials needed for high energy metallurgy) and Russian manufacture of compressor and turbine blades and wheels has never equaled what P&W and GE in America and Rolls Royce in the UK routinely achieved.

    After the fall of Communism, a lot of general aviation pilots and operators in the US hoped that the ex-Warpac nations would become suppliers to the world GA markets, because of lower labor and material costs and functional immunity to the then-prevalent bugaboo of "product liability" which was the excuse why GA aircraft were expensive and of old design. Warpac light aircraft were of even older design, but we hoped they would at least be a lot cheaper. It turned out that all these manufacturing operations were so inefficient that the Warpac aircraft would have cost more than what Wichita was selling. In addition, they could not locally source things like flight instruments calibrated in standard (aviation standard for the rest of the world that is) units and Western ones had to be fitted at retail prices. Apparently they can not make an altimeter in feet rather than meters or a compass with 360 degrees instead of 32 points, as in a Horatio Hornblower novel.

    Neither Russia nor any other ex Warpac nation seems able to produce electronic test equipment or machinist's measuring tools either. None of this bodes well for taking the latest generation of Russian aircraft as equals of the F-22, for instance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Erebus says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    I don’t follow your argument; if the Russian force in Syria is too small to win, who is going to inflict the defeat on US forces that would be devastating to US imperial credibility?

    The Kalibr, X-101, and X-32(?) missile strikes, launched from a wide variety of platforms and locations may be rather expensive ways to spoil jihadi commanders’ breakfast meetings, but they’re a very cost-effective way of letting the US Central Command know that the Russian expeditionary force in Syria is not alone, or in any way “isolated”.
    In fact, they demonstrate that the Russian expeditionary force is fully integrated into the entire Russian military complex, and that they will be defended from a wide variety of unassailable positions. The table turned around with the first Kalibr launch from the Caspian. Suddenly Central Command’s theatre assets became more “isolated” than Russia’s expeditionary force.

    From time to time, Russia sent reminders from TU-160s over the Urals & Iran, and surface & sub-surface shipping in the Med. Centcom understood the message and busied itself with betraying the Kurds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    OK, then the Russian force isn’t too small to win, no? Still not getting your point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. The one concern that I think over rides or eves a the test is that it has not bee tested.

    The US has not fought a major power since Korea.

    But I would add this caveat, should the US have to engage in such a conflict. She will most likely not do it alone.

    Side note: NATO defeated Serbia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  190. Narwan says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

    US airforce/navy is stronger.
     
    US Navy, despite all its problems, is the strongest Navy in the world and by far. But it also has a fatal flaw. This, to a significant degree applies to US Air Force too. The issue with acquisition in US military is, indeed, clear and present danger to the US and it is only the fact of US superb geographic position that this gigantic flaw hasn't been demonstrated even more dramatically. This is how Colonel Davies was forced to admit it:

    The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe.
     
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-sobering-truth-about-the-pentagons-acquisition-failures-15138

    The problem is deeper than some collection of technologies, the problem is cultural and it cannot be changed.

    Thanks for the excellent background information.

    With regards to the US navy though one should not assign it too much clout. The US navy is primairily a colonial enforcement tool whose actual combat capabilities are nowhere near the level they are commonly portrayed at.
    The quality of the equipment used is overall fairly poor, either due to being outdated, being too complicated (resulting in a lot of downtime) and most importantly the incomptence of the crews. The latter is a very serious issue in the US armed forces and especially in the US surface fleet. Add to that the top-heavy organisation of the different commands filled with political generals and admirals.

    Instead of just listing examples i’d like to refer to this excellent website. Both the author of the blog and the main contributors to the discussions are very pro-US but they are also very aware of the near disastrous state of the US (surface) navy and discuss this in great detail with many showcases:

    http://navy-matters.blogspot.de/

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.
    I very much fear that should the US navy be seriously challenged by an opponent all too many of it’s surface vessels will turn out to be floating coffins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.
     
    Good takes, Narwan. I've been bitching about the Navy and the train wreck Naval Air has become, how few carriers can put to sea with operational squadrons, escorts and crew. 10 carriers in stock, 3 or 4 at sea (at the most and we don't get the truth as to how fully mission capable they are). The rest reside pier side, floating offices for single women with children. Because: if we deploy, what to do with the children? They lie about their deployment plans, their ships go to sea and the ladies miss movement of their ship. And they aren't subject to Court Martial or even NJP. THESE are the "sailors" we filled sailor's billets with? The ships, with the urinals all removed and potties all enclosed and private-like are also training grounds for homosexuals and trannies. Best part? We have two more under construction and one built with NMC catapults. It's UN-fuckin-believable. It's culture, it's corruption (why is Lockeed the airplane manufacturer now building my ships?). Too few contractors control the entire procurement landscape. Add in the revolving door, the Generals and Admirals beholden to the contractors and of course, the Alphabet Soup of Sexual Depravity and their involvement in all of it and from where I sit, it's a big fat dumpster fire.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    The US navy is primairily a colonial enforcement tool whose actual combat capabilities are nowhere near the level they are commonly portrayed at.
     
    Certainly applicable to surface fleet which is heavily carrier-centric force, which, in its turn, creates a dis-balance. It finally occurred to Rowden that one has to have an actual surface strike weapon and "distributed lethality" term was introduced, I think it is too late, but I may be wrong. US Navy has some excellent ASW platforms, but modern ASW is an extremely complex affair. It also has a superb submarine force and that is what really makes it a formidable force. I agree, it is an Imperial Navy honed for Power Projection (meaning blowing shit up with impunity in third world shitholes).

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.
     
    True. Add here such "combat" ships as LCS--which turned out to be an embarrassment ( a very expensive one), aka self-propelled 57-mm gun, and one gets the idea that there are some huge issues across the whole spectrum of naval warfare. But those are just some signs of a much larger problem with the US as a whole. But for now, US Navy remains the most powerful among US armed branches. For now, but the signs of Hollow Force are already highly pronounced. Granted that the world doesn't slide into the global war, it will take some time for the US to finally reach some kind of balance between real (actual) capability is CAN have and geopolitical objectives it can achieve based on this capability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Erebus
    The Kalibr, X-101, and X-32(?) missile strikes, launched from a wide variety of platforms and locations may be rather expensive ways to spoil jihadi commanders' breakfast meetings, but they're a very cost-effective way of letting the US Central Command know that the Russian expeditionary force in Syria is not alone, or in any way "isolated".
    In fact, they demonstrate that the Russian expeditionary force is fully integrated into the entire Russian military complex, and that they will be defended from a wide variety of unassailable positions. The table turned around with the first Kalibr launch from the Caspian. Suddenly Central Command's theatre assets became more "isolated" than Russia's expeditionary force.

    From time to time, Russia sent reminders from TU-160s over the Urals & Iran, and surface & sub-surface shipping in the Med. Centcom understood the message and busied itself with betraying the Kurds.

    OK, then the Russian force isn’t too small to win, no? Still not getting your point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    OK, then the Russian force isn’t too small to win, no? Still not getting your point.
     
    See my comment to FB @194.
    The argument, as I understand it, is whether Russia's Syrian contingent, taken by itself, could survive a determined American attack. Andrei Martyanov's (and most others') stance is that it would be overwhelmed. Certainly, by late 2015 the ramifications of their presence were becoming apparent, yet the USM sat on its hands. FB has been claiming that the Russian contingent could in fact defend itself, but hasn't (yet) given a convincing argument why he thinks so.
    So, the question arises "Why did the USM stand down?" Martyanov's opinion is that they got the "horse's head in the bed" offer when the Russians launched the Caspian Kalibrs and I'm just echoing his point. In straight power calculus terms, the launch said: "You could blow our little expeditionary force away, but doing so will cost you your assets and presence in the M.E. Your move."

    In summary, Russia's Syrian force, cannot be defended, and the main/only factor keeping a USM attack at bay is that the collateral damage (Centcom) would fall disproportionately on the American side. That's why I use the term zugzwang. The geo-political situation demands a move from the US, but any move it makes puts it in a worse position than the one it's in. So, it sits hoping the situation changes in some miraculous way that gives them some running room, but it seems that Russian diplomacy has boxed them in there as well. So far, their Iraqi Kurdish gambit failed and the Syrian variant is failing. They're now hoping Al Qaeda saves them. Not a lot of moves left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @renfro
    You should wish the US had a leader as smart as Putin.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

    Putin Pays off all USSR Debt
    Paying back $60bn of USSR debt with the latest payment of 22bn owed to the 17 Paris Club creditors.

    Russia paid off all its debt---the US otoh is swimming in debt .....6% of US income (taxes) goes to pay interest on that debt last time I checked, probably higher now.

    Putin is a true statesman. Always striking to compare his intelligent responses to any number of policy issues, to American politicians, who can barely mouth mindless platitudes without a teleprompter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Rich says:
    @Philip Owen
    Britain in the 30's was pacifist. The first spitfire wasn't produced until after Munich. Merlin engine powered fighter planes were the only effective weapons the UK had in 1940. But even in 1940, the UK started to out produce Germany in every class of weapon: planes, ships and tanks, without counting Canada. Assuming USSR stayed neutral, the British Empire would have eventually beaten Germany in a straight fight. The UK didn't have a strategic bomber in action until 1942. Build up takes time. More money, more men (5 million Indians volunteered for the army), more weapons, more oil to fuel jet engines. USSR neutrality mattered. USSR supplied Germany with rubber the most critical raw material for Germany. Make a plane or a car or even wheels for a decent horse cart without rubber? The UK was also on the right track for an A bomb, unlike the Germans.

    The USSR was forced into the fight by Germany and Japan expanded its war to attack the US and the UK so it wasn't a straight fight. Canadian Valentine tanks diverted in mid ocean from the UK were defending Moscow by December 1941. The US clearly shortened the war by 3 or 4 years but the UK could hold Germany back and blockade it and UK/Russia could defeat it.

    Maybe, I wouldn’t have bet on it, though. Without the US, would the Brits have bothered to keep fighting if the Nazis had given them a pass? I’m pretty sure there would have been no D-Day without the US and if the Germans didn’t have the pesky Allies in North Africa, the Atlantic and Western Europe to deal with, I think the Germans would have defeated the Soviets.

    Of course it was a concerted effort to defeat the Nazis and without the Western Front, led by the US, I believe the Germans would have gotten their Lebensraum. The Soviets were on their heels before the US entry and the Brits were alone as a free nation in Western Europe. The US was the stick that broke the German camel’s back. Many of the commenters here have a major dislike of the US, though, and want to give all the credit to their Communist heroes. I strongly disagree with that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong

    Brits were alone as a free nation in Western Europe
     
    What a staled cold war propaganda. The WWII was a bitter dog eat dog infighting between the morally defunct greedy imperials for spoils. "Free" my foot, after the Axis Powers was defeat the first thing those "free" nations did was to recolonize all their colonies and continue their imperial enslavement, brutal suppression, greedy exploitation and squeeze "free" out of their colonies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Erebus says:
    @FB

    '...Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly...'
     
    This is the layman's take...as I tried to point out on the 800 lb Gorilla thread...

    '...Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset...'
     
    That is not how a US-Russia conflict in Syria would unfold...

    As I began to explain on the other thread...a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to suppress the Russian air defenses there...

    Ie a SEAD operation...

    A massive TLAM salvo at Hmeimim would achieve nothing...

    Russian SAMs [numbering in the dozens of launchers and radars are already dispersed...and could not be targeted by TLAMs which have no such capability...]

    Russian aircraft there would be in the skies defending the airspace and shooting down TLAMs not sitting on the airfield...so would not be hit by a TLAM salvo...

    What is the result...?

    Russian SAMs are are all still there an able to shoot down any airspace intruders...

    No Russian aircraft lost...and can operate from any number of airfields in the area...or even from Russian bases...

    A TLAM salvo...no matter how massive... would achieve nothing...anyone who knows anything about air combat knows this...

    But again...it is ridiculous to contemplate a TLAM salvo...as the US would never contemplate such a ridiculous and doomed-to-fail scenario...

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop...but nobody seems interested...

    Now on this thread...the discussion was supposed to be about Russian advances in crucial technologies like the scramjet engine [supersonic combusting ramjet]...which powers the new Zircon missile...and which technology the US lags far behind...

    Yet the discussion has inevitably turned into armchair general nonsense...

    Go get yourselves a copy of CMANO...and have at it...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command%3A_Modern_Air_Naval_Operations

    Sorry FB, didn’t notice your post.

    This is the layman’s take…

    I’m obviously a layman, but there are a few professionals hanging around here that disagree with you, so (assuming you’re a professional) what’s a layman to do when the experts disagree? Well, I think things through as best I can and come to my “layman’s take”. If I’m lucky, a pro will show me where I went wrong. If I’m even luckier and hit close to the mark, a pro may come along and apply a course correction.

    The take I took on the 800lb Gorilla thread was that the Russians would “run out bullets” before the USM “ran out of targets” for them to shoot at. Assuming the Russians have 3-500 SAMs and a dozen, maybe 2, air superiority fighters in Syria, what happens after they’ve all been launched/lost first against salvos of various stand-off missiles including the TLAM, followed by fleets of Predators and other armed UAVs, and then against incoming waves of B1/2s, B52s, F15/16/18/22s, etc and there’s still more waves coming, from all directions? Following that will come waves of A10s, Apaches, and whatever else Centcom can throw at what’s left of now defenceless ground targets. Even at 100% combat efficiency, somewhere along the line the Russians will have run out ammunition. Latakia, Tartus, and Hmeimim would surely be degraded to inoperable if not destroyed. No? If not, why not?

    To be sure, Centcom would have to have understood the existential nature of its situation, and moreover lost their aversion to casualties. Absent the Russian demonstrations of their stand-off capabilities, it is imaginable that the the USM would be able to man-up and deal with it. After those demonstrations, it ceased being a matter of losing a few hundred planes and assets, and became a very high probability of losing Centcom altogether. That, I think is what stayed their hand.

    …a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to suppress the Russian air defenses there…

    Would it? Or would it just have to deplete them? In any case, the real combat efficiency of the S3/400 and Pantsir complexes is unknown to us (at least to me), but I doubt it’s reliably “1 shot – 1 kill”, never mind “1 shot – n kills” (where n>1).

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop…but nobody seems interested…

    I guess you haven’t been there lately. I and another commentator were lamenting the thread’s apparent death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...there are a few professionals hanging around here that disagree with you...'
     
    Where...?

    I haven't seen anyone here that actually has demonstrated anything I would call technical knowledge rising to the level of professionalism