Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[Hax]

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

[Vuk]

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did, and the only guilt the rest of Europe should feel is that their countries were not ready for the threat. Seriously, quit it with the guilt stuff! How many Jews have you personally gassed Hax? How many did you support being gassed? How many did you allow to be gassed? How many did you want gassed? I guarantee you that the answer to all those questions is 0. You have no reason what so ever to feel guilty. Would you feel guilty if you have never in action or thought committed any sexual crime against anyone, but you found out that your grandfather was a rapist? Of course not, that was not your fault, it was out of your control, and you have no reason to feel guilty. Guilt is not healthy for anyone. Yes, you can look back on history and use it to avoid making mistakes, but to feel 'collective guilt' is plain BS.

I don't even know where to begin with the rest of your post... I will have to answer later, as I have research for my paper to do now.

[gaelic cowboy]

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did,

Hitler personally killed six million people did he then ???? I think you might find that apart from WW1 he prob never killed anyone himself. Hitler did however preside over a vile regime with people who think war solves things, collective resposibility is a legitimate tack for the german people of the day because of the crimes committed against all humanity.

Having a society reject aggressive militarism is something to be cherished.

[Subotan]

So what? I am not arguing about size. I am arguing about society and citizenry ONLY.

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

As I said before, you cannot control the other guy's actions, only your own. That may have been Germany and Russia's cause to attack (or whatever you believe it was), but that was not what caused the allies to allow it to happen. The Allies' (as they later were known) militaries were in a state of slump, and everyone was so scared of war that Hitler knew they would let him do whatever he wanted until it was too late. If the allies were not so darned afraid of war and stood up for themselves and each other, WWII would never have happened.

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

Unthinkable? lol The charade that is the EU will only last so long before weaker members are fed up with being exploited by more influential members

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?

or until a foreign war comes to their turf and the member states disagree as to where they stand.

I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

You see, that is really funny. A war is a historical event where two sides clearly state their reasons, so you can point to many instances of war, but there not being a war (ei Peace) is a non-event where no one gives a reason, and therefore impossible to pull up provable, concrete examples. I will put it like this though, every period of peace a country or people have ever enjoyed is must likely due to military readiness. The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)

The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

Fine, the lack of reliable, scientific sources that it WOULD vanish permanently from this earth. I have yet to see one.

That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.

lol, you like to assume much, don't you my friend?

In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.

lmao, do you really believe that?

Believe? I know it.

P.S. It's spelt "bollocks"

[Hax]

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did, and the only guilt the rest of Europe should feel is that their countries were not ready for the threat. Seriously, quit it with the guilt stuff! How many Jews have you personally gassed Hax? How many did you support being gassed? How many did you allow to be gassed? How many did you want gassed? I guarantee you that the answer to all those questions is 0. You have no reason what so ever to feel guilty. Would you feel guilty if you have never in action or thought committed any sexual crime against anyone, but you found out that your grandfather was a rapist? Of course not, that was not your fault, it was out of your control, and you have no reason to feel guilty. Guilt is not healthy for anyone. Yes, you can look back on history and use it to avoid making mistakes, but to feel 'collective guilt' is plain BS.

No, I may have not had a personal hand in what Jew was killed, I may not have shot a Russian soldier, and I did not execute Sophie and Hans Scholl, however, since the advent of the industrial age, the concept of nationalism and the start of the colonisation, Europe had been poised for a large-scale conflict that would leave an imprint that would be felt for many generations. And no, guilt is not the right way to explain what we should feel, but I'd rather call it awareness. With everything we do, speaking in political terms, we should be aware of the effects nationalism had on Europe and how easy we all slipped into something that destroys the very essence of our humanity.

[Subotan]

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

Hax rides to the intellectual rescue again!

[Husar]

Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)

I didn't say we'd all be wiped out, but I live in a city, what's the point in preparing to be a good soldier if I'm the first to die before we even know it's war anyway?

lol, first of all, don't get me started on France. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.

Please explain how the readiness of countries outside of Europe prevents war inside Europe?
Why don't those ready countries prevent war in Africa?

Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.

Except you claimed earlier that this readiness is the only way to get peace, yet they are still under attack from many paramilitary and terrorist groups from the neighboring countries. Such a threat doesn't really exist in Europe, the Netherlands aren't under a constant siege from their neighbors and nobody supports armed groups that keep bombing the dutch people.

You don't understand Americans.

And you don't understand Europeans, at all.

Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?

"France's plans to annex the West Bank revealed?"

[Brenus]

“Training and military discipline is not harsh enough to prepare citizens for war, and European society makes preparing them for war even harder.”
Funny enough it is what I was thinking of the US and their over weighted population.

[Noncommunist]

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

Europe is also about twice the population of the US as well.

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

How would you have controlled nationalism in Germany short of splitting it into several nations and having a near permanent standing foreign militaries on both sides of the border like in the cold war?

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?"

Well, I'd imagine that the US and Russian Armies at the border helped a lot.

[Subotan]

"France's plans to annex the West Bank revealed?"

Hahahaha this genuinely made me lol :D

Europe is also about twice the population of the US as well.

2/3rds actually, but I get your point. Thing is, Vuk claimed we were gun shy, which surely cannot be the case if we have such a large military.

How would you have controlled nationalism in Germany short of splitting it into several nations and having a near permanent standing foreign militaries on both sides of the border like in the cold war? .

I didn't say it would be easy, and I'm far too drunk at this moment in time to lay down any specifics about what might have been done. If you remind me, I'll catch you up on that.

Well, I'd imagine that the US and Russian Armies at the border helped a lot.

I do not think so. Europeans in general have realised that inter-European war is pointless and only brings pain. Even if the Russkies and the Americans had withdrawn, we still would have built the European Union without them.

[Vuk]

Thing is, Vuk claimed we were gun shy, which surely cannot be the case if we have such a large military.

Being gun shy is not the absence of guns, but the unwillingness to use them. (see martial arts example)

I didn't say we'd all be wiped out, but I live in a city, what's the point in preparing to be a good soldier if I'm the first to die before we even know it's war anyway?

You wouldn't have to worry about that. Russia knows that if it attacks Europe it will have the US to worry about, so they would probably take out just a few European cities to scare the European populace, and then use the rest on America. They would be a scare tactic, but do very little real damage to the European war effort in the scheme of things. Also, Russia lacks good delivery systems, so with any type of missile defense system, they would probably be limited to only hitting cities on the borders.

Please explain how the readiness of countries outside of Europe prevents war inside Europe?
Why don't those ready countries prevent war in Africa?

Africa is not important enough to the US or Russia. Europe is important to Russia, and therefore it is important to America that Europe does not fall into Russian hands. (Europe is our foothold on the continent if you will) If an analogy would help, think of it like this: America and Russia are two big dogs, and Europe is the little scrap of meat that they fight over.

Except you claimed earlier that this readiness is the only way to get peace, yet they are still under attack from many paramilitary and terrorist groups from the neighboring countries. Such a threat doesn't really exist in Europe, the Netherlands aren't under a constant siege from their neighbors and nobody supports armed groups that keep bombing the dutch people.

Some times you need war to end war. Radical islam is a disease that eats away at the fabric of society, and it will not stop unless they are completely destroyed by allied powers...something that so far Americans and Euroswieners seem unwilling to do.

No, I may have not had a personal hand in what Jew was killed, I may not have shot a Russian soldier, and I did not execute Sophie and Hans Scholl, however, since the advent of the industrial age, the concept of nationalism and the start of the colonisation, Europe had been poised for a large-scale conflict that would leave an imprint that would be felt for many generations. And no, guilt is not the right way to explain what we should feel, but I'd rather call it awareness. With everything we do, speaking in political terms, we should be aware of the effects nationalism had on Europe and how easy we all slipped into something that destroys the very essence of our humanity.

Thus, YOU have not killed such and such people. Modern Europeans have not either. Definitely, look back on history to learn how to avoid mistakes, but don't take on the guilt of others was my point. Personally I think that you are looking back at history and coming to the wrong conclusions, but whatever.

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

Not really. When I say gun-shy, I mean afraid to use a gun and ESP afraid to stand up against one, not to own one. Like in my martial arts analogy, I know people who have all the skills in the world, but who clam up when it comes to a fight, and then get the blood beaten out of them.

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

BS

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?

Are you saying that France is not economically exploiting the rest of Europe then?


I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

Maybe. How is this for a scenario. NK (north korea) goes to war with US. US goes to war with NK. China goes to war with US. Germany and Britain join US. Russia takes advantage of the situation and invades Poland. Germany declares war on Russia. France joins Russia. WWIII. Will it happen? I have no idea. It could though, and it is probably as likely to as to not. No one thought WWI was going to happen when it did. No one thought that WWII would either.

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)

Being aggressive and being defensive are two different things that I think you have a hard time differentiating. Hitler was aggressive. The USSR was aggressive. Through most of its history the US has been defensive. In the last century Britain has been mostly defensive.

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

I never said that. Through the military readiness of the US and the USSR. Russia wanting the juicy scrap of meat that is Europe, and America trying to keep it out of Russia's hands. Military readiness is not the same as military suspicion BTW. Why do you deliberately use negative words like that?

That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.

Someone is condescending. Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

Believe? I know it.

Cause you teacha told ya so?

Hitler personally killed six million people did he then ???? I think you might find that apart from WW1 he prob never killed anyone himself. Hitler did however preside over a vile regime with people who think war solves things, collective resposibility is a legitimate tack for the german people of the day because of the crimes committed against all humanity.
Having a society reject aggressive militarism is something to be cherished.

I never said he directly killed him. What I said is that it was Hitler who killed them (indirectly as it were) generations ago, and the last three generations could not possibly be held responsible.
The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems. It defeated Hitler, and if Europeans were not so gun-shy and passionate on avoiding war, they would have stopped Hitler before he became a threat. The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war. Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess. No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

[CBR]

Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

Well... fear, suspicion and large armies kept the peace in 1914 did it not?...oh wait.

[Megas Methuselah]

Hey, remember Phillip? He took ideas from Epaminondas and ran with them. Well, I'm Epaminondas. It's amusing. Vuk is as European as they come, man. How the hell does he even scrape by the time to post all this jazz? I thought he worked full-time at Arby's?

[Fragony]

@Vuk, who knows maybe you are right and Americans are better fit for war, but how would you know it never reached America. Let's say North-Korea invades you, if they are as nasty to your civilians as they are to their own you are very lucky, it will completely shake up a population that never imagined such a thing being possible. In area's uncontrolled by North-Korea there will be martial law, there won't be enough food and there will be riots, the American army will inevitably kill American citizens, are you really ready for that? Ready to pick up what you can and flee your house? How would you know you are, just a hunch? The most dangerous people in the world live in Eastern Europe in the Balkans, they know about all that, there's not a generation that hasn't seen it there. Europeans are not weak, we have about the same capacity for war, but militarism makes us really nervous. I live near a barracks and a military airport, never see someone in uniform, it's invisable. But it's there

[Centurion1]

well thats a sort of silly example frags. i mean lol. their fleet is so rusty it would sink on the way over.

but what is vuk is saying used to be true say.... around ww1 and ww2 as well as earlier that americans were better for conscription troops than most western europeans. in that time in americas history before the urbanization movements many more of our citizens were apt to use weapons and military lifestyle from the life we led. no i feel besides the soutth (where we draw the majority of our troops) this is no longer the case. now i would say americans are more nationalistic and patriotic (for wars) than the average european but give the european a legitimate threat to his security and he can fight as well as anyone.

[Fragony]

Not so silly, the scenario has been simulated over and over and North-Korea won every time, they can't beat you but neither can you beat them.

Not saying that Vuk is wrong, I simply don't know. What I do think is that being overly confident is like the oak that snaps in a storm instead of bending a little

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm wondering if Vuk or anyone else can provide any evidence that European soldiers would fold in the way that he is claiming. I would think the results of war games would be the only semi-reliable way to gauge such things.

Surely Germany, France, or any other nation would fear war with America on a macro level for macro reasons, but is there any factual basis for the claim that, say, a battalion of Marines would crush a battalion of Fallschirmjäger? Would 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment of the 1st Armored Division running Abrams rout PanzerLehr Battalion 93 of 1st Panzer Division running Leopard 2's? I've read the after action reports from the last time Americans were obliged to actually fight Germans and it was in fact the latter who were left decidedly unimpressed with tactical performace of the former.

Don't get me wrong, I love the American military. It is certainly the most technologically advanced in the world (we've paid for it!), but it is also manned by some of the best citizens America has to offer - which is far more important than tech. However, this kind of hubris is dangerous and is exactly what the Pentagon has tried to tamp down after the 1st Gulf War. Americans haven't fought a competent enemy in a long time.

[Husar]

What I do think is that being overly confident is like the oak that snaps in a storm instead of bending a little

Ah yes, like all the people chanting "Christmas in Paris" or "Christmas in Berlin" when they entered the cattle wagons that brought them to the front and then ended up crying and peeing in their pants in a trench.
Such is the value of being ready and willing to go to war.

Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

How about you get real and tell us what good it does Russia to invade Europe in the first place?
What do we have that they can't get much easier through peaceful means while they collect all our money by selling us gas?

[gaelic cowboy]

The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems.

Think about what your saying here Vuk, you are trying to claim that a generic trait common to all people is specific to European people. Cooporatation is far more common to the human condition that you give credit for, I am glad I don't actually live in your imagined absolutist world.

It defeated Hitler, and if Europeans were not so gun-shy and passionate on avoiding war, they would have stopped Hitler before he became a threat. The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war.

Amazing lack of either historical perspective or even just common sense here.

Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess.

No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

I suppose it had nothing to do with the fact the depression had hit Europe badly and the various economies could not afford a war, most were not capable of mobilising early or properly enough for war cos they were economically weak. Also pretty much all the material I have ever read says that everyone believed the war was coming but each side was trying to delay till it would be advantageous for them.

You have a real John Wayne complex Vuk, A mans gotta do what mans gotta do and all that silly rubbish, you do realise the West was actually won by shopkeepers right.

Also I just realised 7 pages for a thread that pretty much was debunked on page one.

[Fragony]

Vuk is wrong about Europeans but going to defend him anyway, when you strip it it's about resolve, and that can be cultural. Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross. Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

edit, and leaders were cowards, taking the Netherlands wasn't as fun as the Germans expected it to be it cost them dearly , but the leaders pretty much surrendered before the invasion

[gaelic cowboy]

Vuk is wrong about Europeans but going to defend him anyway, when you strip it it's about resolve, and that can be cultural. Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross. Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

No it cannot be defended not in the terms that he see's it, plus kamikazi and jihadi tactics are born out of desperation not superior cultural mores.

Vuk see's european pacifism as basically suspect, just because people do not like the idea of messing about in foreign climes with young mens lives does not mean they will demand surrender upon invasion by mythical alien hordes.

[Fragony]

No it cannot be defended not in the terms that he see's it, plus kamikazi and jihadi tactics are born out of desperation not superior cultural mores.

Vuk see's european pacifism as basically suspect, just because people do not like the idea of messing about in foreign climes with young mens lives does not mean they will demand surrender upon invasion by mythical alien hordes.

He's wrong about how hard Europeans will fight when needed, but a a place having a pacifist culture has never been that much of an argument to anyone. Goes back as far as you want to date it, Alexander of Macedon was disgusted by the decadence that comes from pacifism, he thought of it as a maelstrom of corruption

[CBR]

Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

Maybe there is a difference, but when one looks at say early 50's and mid/late 60's I would say Americans don't like long wars with no clear purpose. And why should they?

[Centurion1]

north korean military would certainly get their @@@@@ raped by the us military pardon my prison french. that has never been DISPROVEN frags.

[Greyblades]

That is true, without backing from china or russia north korea would fall in battle quickly.
The problem comes when the population turns to gureilla tactics, seeing as they are 10 times more fanatical about obeying thier "glorious leader" than anyone else on this earth I think they would become a worse problem to an invading army than the taliban or the viet cong.

[Fragony]

north korean military would certainly get their @@@@@ raped by the us military pardon my prison french. that has never been DISPROVEN frags.

They haven't tried, but I'm not kidding the scenario of a Nort Korean attack has been simulated many times and you lose, how would you stop such a tip of the spear. You don't really like South Koreans that much youknow

[Greyblades]

Realy. I guess it depends on the defenition of winning. Getting the north koreans to surrender and bow thier heads to the US? Impossible. But just being able to hold them at the border long enough for thier economy and society to collapse due to attrition there by forcing them to sue for peace just to keep from revolt? I think that is a possible win.

[gaelic cowboy]

Realy. I guess it depends on the defenition of winning. Getting the north koreans to surrender and bow thier heads to the US? Impossible. But just being able to hold them at the border long enough for thier economy and society to collapse due to attrition there by forcing them to sue for peace just to keep from revolt? I think that is a possible win.

I think what Frags is referring to is the senario whereby the North would in the early stages of the war cruise well down the peninsula at first. The amount of troops required to hold the shear mass of Koreans would need to be far higher, USA war games have borne that out on several occasions.

The US would sacrifice territory for time to allow it's fleet time to unload more troops and jets.

[Fragony]

I think what Frags is referring to is the senario whereby the North would in the early stages of the war cruise well down the peninsula at first. The amount of troops required to hold the shear mass of Koreans would need to be far higher, USA war games have borne that out on several occasions.

The US would sacrifice territory for time to allow it's fleet time to unload more troops and jets.

Well yeah. But to take it to Vuk, how resolved do you think you will be, I'm pretty sure I'm a coward when things go wrong

[gaelic cowboy]

Well yeah. But to take it to Vuk, how resolved do you think you will be, I'm pretty sure I'm a coward when things go wrong

I don't understand what your talking about here frag, do you mean if the enemy invaded would I resist??? How would I know that really, I mean every situation is different.

I might take to the hills like my grandfather and engage the enemy IRA Flying Column style, but equally I might wait a while till the enemy drew down from aggressive operations so that my actions have better chance of succeeding. I might decide to engage in peaceful protest or anarchic street protest who knows the idea is hypothetical we can never know.