The differences between America and Europe

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
"The United States does act as an international sheriff, self-appointed perhaps but widely welcomed nevertheless, trying to enforce some peace and justice"

Fantasy world stuff.

Barkeep, Gimme a beer!

[Pekka]

DanS, Yeah. right to the point. But it shouldn't become as a surprise. If looking into more details why it didn't work, i'd be surprised if they had shot more plains down. I think they shot more of their own. It didn't work because it was crappy system. But you see, there are different systems. They didn't have it together. I don't believe that dominating air is easy to get if it really works. Now.. we know how it works .
But yeah. There were many fundamental problems which were known even before attack.
Few hundred planes and cruisemissiles and smartbombing doesn't shake the system if it's good. Just gives few scratches.

edit: but when you guys attack Iraq again, i think it's not any better. So it should be fairly easy to get the air. China? I don't think so. Could be done, but with heavy losses and then it comes to what is acceptable losses.

[Roland]

"Roland: It's an analogy."

I'm a lawyer. I know a crappy analogy when I see one.

One Beer for the man who looks like he's overdosed on Formaline.

[DanS]

"Barkeep, Gimme a beer!"

Here's a virtual Erdinger. Bottom's up! I think we can all agree that that's some damn fine beer.

"China? I don't think so. Could be done, but with heavy losses and then it comes to what is acceptable losses."

At risk of telling somebody his business, what is your basis for this? Have you participated in any wargames that have gone through this scenario with China?

[Saint Marcus]

China could be bombed into the stone age using conventional power alone. The reason we don't go after China is that there's no good reason to do so. They are our business partner, and they provide a tighly control and cheap labor market.

We smack around the little powers more readily because we can do so without major repercutions to our markets or our military. Sure, we'd take losses fighting China or Europe, but we'd still beat your ass. And we'd keep bombing and keep bombing until we were sure that we'd have an easy land victory.

Oh grow up.

Do you have any idea how many people China has, and how big the country is?

Apparantly not.

Excellent article! It's nice to see someone give the US credit for all that it has done for Europe in the past 50 years. The author negelects to take into account that in the past "multilateralism" has often meant European leaders demanding the services of American soldiers, sailors and airmen, financed by American citizens, putting themselves in harm's way, in order to satisfy the new European view of a world of laws. They want a cop, they don't want a cop. No one could follow the capricious whims of such masters and retain their self respect.

It seems everybody is reading something different in that one article...

I would use large amounts of napalm on China (in a war).

you don't have enough to kill 1.2 billion. Hell, you don't even have enough to kill 1% of all Chinese.

GePap: We have about 100 bombers, each of which can carry about 10-15x precision-guided 2,000 pound bombs. With sufficient air cover and without a restraining force, these could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks, probably even without too many overflight rights from allies.

Even Serbia took longer, which is far smaller.

And two notes: China has the world's biggest airforce. And the US won't have a sufficient number of fighters to escort the bombers to the west.

Christian Evangalism is also spreading

Yet, other Christian groups are losing believers rapidly.

What I hear from Europe is that we should either ignore or appease Saddam. This is not a plan.

He's no threath to you. And he will never use the bomb, unless he's cornered. If you leave him alone, and contain his aggression, he's quite harmless.

Furthermore, there is nobody to succeed him. There is no "Northern Alliance" in Iraq. Opposition is fragmented, or Kurdish.

Somalia

Somalia was a UN mission, not a US one. Hence the number of Pakistani troops that were stationed there.

1. US power is hopelessly overstated. You can go against 3rd rate powers. That's about it.

That's what I said.

4. The transatlantic alliance is dead. It'll be for the next generation of politicians to bury the rotting corpse and come up with something else.

About Goddamn time.

Heck, what if saddam took refuge in Iran? No one has brought that one up!

Cause it's a stupid suggestion. Iran hates Sadam.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
And two notes: China has the world's biggest airforce. And the US won't have a sufficient number of fighters to escort the bombers to the west.

That's correct. We could never hope to stop all of them from ramming into our aircraft which seems to be SOP for them.

[Pekka]

DanS, why bother? I think it's more than obvious that if you send fleets to attack, they will get losses too if the enemy is difficult and strong. And if it went all out war, well then there will be heavy losses. I'm not talking about everybody getting killed, just heavy losses. And then it comes to question is it worth the cause. I think we don't need any generals to tell this to us. Or did i get your question wrong?

[Az]

He's no threath to you. And he will never use the bomb, unless he's cornered. If you leave him alone, and contain his aggression, he's quite harmless.

Do you really believe this? the guy has been picking up fights at all the opportunities he had.

Kropo : they're just a sect. "muslim feminists"...

[DanS]

"I think it's more than obvious that if you send fleets to attack, they will get losses too if the enemy is difficult and strong. And if it went all out war, well then there will be heavy losses. I'm not talking about everybody getting killed, just heavy losses."

How is this obvious? I have no basis to judge. The only thing obvious to me would be that the loss of 300 million Chinese would take a lot of justification.

"And then it comes to question is it worth the cause. I think we don't need any generals to tell this to us."

No, we don't need any generals to tell this to us, yet we do need the generals to make sure that it is possible to do.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
He's no threath to you. And he will never use the bomb, unless he's cornered. If you leave him alone, and contain his aggression, he's quite harmless.

Is that why France continually tries to aid his nuclear weapons program?

[Pekka]

Well i guess it's just my opinion. It's the same if China tried to attack US, i think their air force would take heavy losses at some point too.

[Az]

how would they even reach the US?

[Pekka]

dalgetti, that's not the point.

[DanS]

The point that war, even in the air, is a messy business is a point well taken. However, I do note that we expected heavy losses in the Gulf War as well, and were very surprised at how effective our weapons were against Iraq. In the 10 years since the war, we've basically been saying "give us more of what worked in Iraq." And we've spent tens of billions of dollars on it.

We can go around and around about this, but we're really blowing smoke up each others' asses. Point is, we just don't know. That is, unless somebody has something to add...

[Az]

of course not . Just pointing out the stupidity of the argument. Saint Marcus also doesn't know jack . If the US resorted to carpet bombing Chinese cities, it would kill millions of people rather easily.