American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

The accuracy of interceptor rockets for standard ballistic missiles has increased a lot, but the idea of holding off ICBMs with splitting warheads still seems fanciful.

[superdeath]

I'm SOOO PROUD!!!!

This is a pretty good example. I was / am in the military and therefore know the state of Russian nuclear arsenal and most recent nuclear war game results. And for the record even if he was high up intelligence you would still want to see the proof behind the statement although odds of initially believing would go up. And if you are sharing that on this forum we can join the list of forums dealing in classified intelligence! 

As to if they are funny, that is opinion, but Charr grading them as a B seems about right to me; maybe a B- in my opinion (the wagner one was much better than the nuke one).

It wasnt about secrets. Its all pretty well documented and easy enough to find. He is in the army specifically air defenses, and shares recent news/military stuff in a humorous way. Just because its on YouTube doesnt mean its false.



As to us winning or not Afghanistan/Vietnam WELL, without total occupation how would YOU classify a win? We lost less soldiers during that entire war than died on 9/11. The only thing i can say we did badly was the way we retreated. Pulling out was the right course of action, as the people there just arent worth the effort anymore imo. Vietnam was a clusterfuck because both sides were corrupt, but one side happened to be communist. We still won, and again just pulled out due to pressure at home. WITHOUT total occupation, how would you have won that? Firebomb all of the north? Nuke? Artillery bombardment for days akin to ww1? Im actually really curious.

[greenline]

As to us winning or not Afghanistan/Vietnam WELL, without total occupation how would YOU classify a win? We lost less soldiers during that entire war than died on 9/11. The only thing i can say we did badly was the way we retreated. Pulling out was the right course of action, as the people there just arent worth the effort anymore imo. Vietnam was a clusterfuck because both sides were corrupt, but one side happened to be communist. We still won, and again just pulled out due to pressure at home. WITHOUT total occupation, how would you have won that? Firebomb all of the north? Nuke? Artillery bombardment for days akin to ww1? Im actually really curious.

Victory would mean meeting the goals of both campaigns: ensuring the survival and supremacy of the vassal state the US military was backing.

In the case of South Vietnam, the state was competent enough (if not exactly pleasant) that the main threat to its existence was North Vietnam and the Vietcong. North Vietnam could have been defeated by a full on invasion and closing the border to supplies from the USSR and China. This was never attempted, according to sources, because the US military expected a full military intervention from China in response that would presumably result in a similar stalemate to Korea. Given that the South Vietnamese government wasn't able to keep itself together from the Vietcong, the onus would have been on the Pentagon to try a full invasion anyway and to give up if China was willing to go the full mile in return. Or, they could have simply abandoned South Vietnam without a fight, given that it was a strategically worthless French ex-colony.

The Afghan state the US military created after removing the Taliban was an utter joke compared to South Vietnam. Even assuming that the Taliban could have been eliminated, the result of doing so would have just been to leave Afghanistan completely vulnerable to Iranian proxy forces. The entire mission would have to be redesigned from the ground up, and everyone involved would have to have been fired before anything good could have come from it. If it had been taken seriously, the US would have been looking at restoring the old monarchy prior to the communist invasion, instead of trying to pawn democracy on it like a scummy insurance salesman. It also would require putting serious fiscal pressure on Pakistan to pull their intelligence forces out of the region, instead of occasional drone striking them and calling it a day.

[superdeath]

So when are we going to deal with Iran? (separate conversation)

[greenline]

What does it mean to deal with Iran? If the plan is to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, too late. They have stockpiles of enriched uranium buried miles under mountains and can build a bomb before a convention invasion could reach them. If the plan is to economically isolate them, that's been going on for the past 60 years. It hasn't stopped Hezbollah from expanding their operations in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria.

The thing that most looks like a plan from the establishment is that they will keep sending money through surreptitious channels to back pro-democracy protests in Iran, in the hopes of doing an Arab Spring 3.0. Will it work? Those things have a habit of succeeding eventually, but who knows what dire straits the USA might be in by the time it happens.

[Charr Babies]

The point is him having been in the military gives him no credibility in his opinion. Take a wild guess how many different opposing points of view our military men have, not to mention POVs from your enemy's military.

As to us winning or not Afghanistan/Vietnam WELL, without total occupation how would YOU classify a win? We lost less soldiers during that entire war than died on 9/11. The only thing i can say we did badly was the way we retreated. Pulling out was the right course of action, as the people there just arent worth the effort anymore imo. Vietnam was a clusterfuck because both sides were corrupt, but one side happened to be communist. We still won, and again just pulled out due to pressure at home. WITHOUT total occupation, how would you have won that? Firebomb all of the north? Nuke? Artillery bombardment for days akin to ww1? Im actually really curious.

We went to Vietnam with an objective. We failed the objective.
Is the war still going? No, we abandoned our allies and ran home.
With all the money and human life and suffering, what did we gain? Nothing! 20 years of war which we wasted untold amount of money on destruction, had commit many war crimes (cluster bomb, Agent Orange, etc.), with a generation of mind-fucked veterans who by the way are practically abandoned by the country they fought for.
We went to fight the communist, but the communist won. Which is the losing side?

Pulling out was the right course of action, as the people there just arent worth the effort anymore imo.

lol took 20 years to realize this!? BTW, which "people there" are you talking about? The Northerner or the Southerner? How all at a sudden these people are not worth it? You still believe the us fight wars for humanitarian reasons? So Cute 

WITHOUT total occupation, how would you have won that? Firebomb all of the north?

WTF! are the "comedians" the only source you get your information from!? There were indeed more bombs dropped by the U.S. during the Vietnam War than in all of World War II. (including Chemical warfare)

[superdeath]

"people there" was the Afghanistan part.

Nice to see you didnt answer my question, just threw an insult. I know more bombs dropped in Vietnam. Most of them in the south. Failing the objective is one thing, losing a war is another. Vietnam was part of the cold war, and while the objective of stopping communism there may have failed, we won the cold war. Overall a net positive.

" What does it mean to deal with Iran? If the plan is to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, too late. They have stockpiles of enriched uranium buried miles under mountains and can build a bomb before a convention invasion could reach them. If the plan is to economically isolate them, that's been going on for the past 60 years. It hasn't stopped Hezbollah from expanding their operations in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria.

The thing that most looks like a plan from the establishment is that they will keep sending money through surreptitious channels to back pro-democracy protests in Iran, in the hopes of doing an Arab Spring 3.0. Will it work? Those things have a habit of succeeding eventually, but who knows what dire straits the USA might be in by the time it happens. "

To me, dealing with iran is a quick decisive strike, and taking over their regime before it can cause more harm. Roughly in the same sense as how we took down Iraq. If we can do it a more peaceful way via pro-democracy protests, id prefer that. BUT, i dont really see that happening anytime this century.

[greenline]

The Iranian situation doesn't lend itself to a quick resolution. Iran has a great deal of mountainous geography (unlike Iraq, which is mostly a flat plain), has invested in a lot of weaponry designed ground asymmetrically, and a religious fundamentalist group ready to fight from the hinterlands even if they are pushed out of Tehran. The ability of the American military to pull off such a large scale attack has also declined, and forces would need to be built up steadily for the attack. Iran could be defeated in an invasion given that time, but it would be slow, expensive, bloody, and very unpopular. And they would certainly hurry to develop to deploy nukes if such an invasion became unavoidable.

[Charr Babies]

I know more bombs dropped in Vietnam.

If you did, why would you say this!?

WITHOUT total occupation, how would you have won that? Firebomb all of the north?

So what if most of them is dropped in the South as you falsely claimed. Truth is while significant bombing did occur in South Vietnam, the largest bombardment in military history focused primarily on North Vietnam and the neighboring countries of Laos and Cambodia. You still firebombed   the north, and used chemical weapon, and...

You failed your objectives and ran home. When you forfeit you lose. I don't care if its part of the cold war, or part of your quest to world dominance or to prevent a future apocalypse in the year 2099 or your multiverse got messed up. We both agree you lost to Vietnam. Case closed.

[superdeath]

I say that, because again, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE WON.

Firebombing all of the north, in that context means bombing them with napalm and anything else till they are gone from the map. Still waiting on an answer.