Could the US mount an industrial effort equal the effort of WW2?

[Atahualpa]

Lancer retrieve the more ethical version of this question by replacing could with should.
There would be a much easier answer (at least for me)

[Zylka]

[Lonestar]

...and?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


your unit, MTG?

Oh, **** no. Thank God. They were the sad sacks (2 armor battalions, 2 Mech. Inf. battalions) that were the roundout brigade to bring 24 ID (now 3 ID) up to authorized strength. When they got called up to active duty and got orders to integrate with 24 ID, their combat readiness was so poor compared to the rest of the division that they were run through four straight rotations at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, and McCaffrey decided they still weren't up to standard, and would actually be a detriment to 24 ID in the 1st Gulf war.

That gives you some idea of how absurd the notion of a mass mobilization "citizen army" thing is nowadays in the US Army.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Not for a country with enough capacity to destroy the Earth.

Darling's Dilemma again.

The name comes from an Army Lt. Col. Ronald Darling (like the ex-MLB pitcher), who gave a briefing to the JCS under a program that gave up-and-coming O5 and O6 staff officers exposure to the top levels of the US military.

The format was that the briefing officer could prepare whatever scenario he wanted, and do a presentation based on that scenario.

In Darling's Dilemma, he took the role of the President, talking to the JCS as his senior military advisors. In the scenario, the Soviets had breached through the Fulda gap and launched a general offensive against western Europe, and by sheer force of numbers would overrun the defenders in place before reinforcements could be brought in.

Darling, as the hypothetical President, put two nuclear scenarios on the table:

1) A single tactical nuke onto the Soviet forces moving through the Fulda gap, cutting off the spearhead, and making the area impassable for a period of time, so that NATO could reinforce and the Soviets couldn't.

2) If there's no way to guarantee non-escalation into a general nuclear exchange after 1, could the US launch a pre-emptive strategic nuclear strike on the USSR, and take out enough of it's first strike capability to prevent a significant counterstrike against US population centers.

Darling told each of the members of the JCS (in his role as President), that he realized that none of them could offer a 100% guarantee on anything, but would any of them say, with reasonable professional certainty, that scenario 1 would be feasible without a general escalation, or that scenario 2 would be accomplishable to an extent necessary to prevent mass US civilian casualties from a counterstrike.

Not one member of the JCS was able to tell the President that he believed either scenario could be carried out successfully without an unpredictable and unquantifiable risk of escalation.

So Darling's Dilemma is this: Why do we spend money upgrading, replacing, and fielding these weapons, when we will never run the political risk of using them?

That was actually one of the drivers for Reagan's INF and strategic forces reduction talks with the Soviets.

[Zylka]

...and does that dilemma apply when the opposition has no choice but to stick its thumb up their collective ass and wait for the ICMBs to arrive?

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe in dismissing Darling's provocative outcome when we're dealing with people who can barely afford 15$ rifles - not launch dozens of vehicles into outer space

(and don't get all internal placement on me, Sum of All Fears was a little too loose a scenario/bad a movie to forecast a multiplied future out of)

[TCO]

We could do it. There are econimies of scale, some of which you only really even learn when you need to stretch capacity.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Serb

NEVER.
We will bury you, no matter what. Trust me.

In the sub game of cat and mouse we owned and still own your azzes.

[Ben Kenobi]

That was actually one of the drivers for Reagan's INF and strategic forces reduction talks with the Soviets.

Very interesting commentary.

What about complete reduction? Does the Darling dilemma support that argument?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zylka
...and does that dilemma apply when the opposition has no choice but to stick its thumb up their collective ass and wait for the ICMBs to arrive?

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe in dismissing Darling's provocative outcome when we're dealing with people who can barely afford 15$ rifles - not launch dozens of vehicles into outer space

(and don't get all internal placement on me, Sum of All Fears was a little too loose a scenario/bad a movie to forecast a multiplied future out of)

The question is how does the rest of the world (the ones with nukes) react when you decide you want to bake a hundred million or so people in the world's biggest microwave oven, when they're non-nuclear powers.

You basically give the rest of the world a green light to go, and whisper in their ear "better hit first"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Very interesting commentary.

What about complete reduction? Does the Darling dilemma support that argument?

Darling never went that far, or even went to a conclusion. As an O5, he knew that was well past his pay grade, and it's really a civilian policy question.

Simple thing is, we can never go totally non-nuclear, although a reduction from current levels is certainly feasible from all strategic considerations.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The question is how does the rest of the world (the ones with nukes) react when you decide you want to bake a hundred million or so people in the world's biggest microwave oven, when they're non-nuclear powers.

You basically give the rest of the world a green light to go, and whisper in their ear "better hit first"

We can MOAB their cities instead of nuking them. America has the mean, but lacks the will to kill. A nuke on one of our cities would give us this will. The rest of the world wouldn't be happy, but they would understand.

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Unfortunately,

(a) You don't have T90s force wide.
(b) The performance of the Russian Army in Chechnya indicates that your line doggies aren't any better or more professional than the Soviet army in Afghanistan
(c) We just issue M60s to reserve units now, and even some of them have Abrams.

a) It's still MBT of Russia.
b) When was the last time when US tried to win a war vs. partisans? Let me guess....Vietnam, right?
c) Good for you.

Civilians don't get to see things go "boom" much, so going is a natural response to the fun. Tankers in the US Army, though, are used to it, so they just go "How many is that we've gotten so far?"

Sure but those civilians are deligation of American designers, the guys who created Abrams tank. I guess they saw tanks in action no less then any veteran tankers.

We don't need to - we don't allow anyone on the battlefield to live long enough to hit us.

Arrogance...great disadvantage.
Let me guess- no Abrams were lost during last Iraq war, right?
What the hell I saw in news then?

BTW, does that iraqwar.ru site still say how badly we're getting our asses kicked by the Iraqis, courtesy of all that Russian intelligence and real time intercepts of our secured communications? I hope your "arena" system works better than your intelligence and comInt capabilities?

I have no idea what this site says now, but I guess war still goes on there. At least 40 American soldiers died since moment when Bush declared that war is over.

[Poogas]

40 casualties is truly nothing considering its a war.... I realise that its officially over, but theres almost always fighting still after a war has been declared over.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Serb, the T-34 and most immediate postWar designs where based on the American "Christie" tank suspension aquired in the '30's.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/t-34.htm

Next thing you gonna tell me that all modern Russian tanks are based on French Renaults, because first Soviet tank was the copy of French tank. Soviets used foreign designs at the beggining, BUT it was only basement. They had no domesticaly produced tanks and were forced to use foreign experience, because they simply had no choice. When they gained a lot of experience they formed THEIR OWN aproach to tank design and THEIR OWN school of tank design. In 30's Soviet tank school and Soviet aproach to tank design were absolutely different from tank schools of any other country, as well as Soviet tank designs were absolutely different. It's absolutely incorect to say that T-34 was a copy of Christie in some way or another. Suspension of Christie, iirc was used in first Soviet tanks of BT series ('bystryi tank'- fast tank)- BT-1. Between first tank of BT series and first T-34 tank there were years of feild tests, of research, of constant modifications, improvments and tanks like: BT-2, BT-3, BT-4, BT-5, BT-7 and their various modifications.
Now could you explain to me HOW T-34 and most immediate postWar Soviet designs could have been based on the American "Christie" tank suspension aquired in the '30's? The immediate postWar Soviet designs were tanks of JS (Joseph Stalin) series. It was HEAVY TANKS. How anyone could use the same suspension in light, medium and heavy tanks at the same time is beyond me.