(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
THS posted:the United States has been a peacetime army since 1945 and only kicking the poo poo in on farmers and baathists Eh, Vietnam was a serious war even though it was hugely lopsided. Korea even more so. Point being we have some idea in what state the US military is when we see their newest ships catching on fire/dissolving in saltwater/being delivered without weapons but we don't really know how much of the PLA only works on paper.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
my sense is that America can attack with impunity but attack that aircraft carrier and you're going to enter one of our endless wars that destroy your nation even if America 'loses' the war, that's what it represents when it's parked on your shoreline edit: america has gotten so good at losing wars we've been losing in afghanistan for 20 years and no one in the home country even thinks about it, it never has and never will touch their lives in any way Antonymous has issued a correction as of 13:16 on Jan 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:13
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Eh, Vietnam was a serious war even though it was hugely lopsided. Korea even more so. Point being we have some idea in what state the US military is when we see their newest ships catching on fire/dissolving in saltwater/being delivered without weapons but we don't really know how much of the PLA only works on paper. the United States is incredibly effective at murdering literally millions of people with no air defenses. What's the last war that the United States fought where the enemy fought back on the same terms? WW2
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
Carriers have their uses, but work much better in true blue water environments (like in the middle of the Atlantic ocean) where they can use the range of their fighters to reach a defensive umbrella around a battle group. If anything the straits/south China Seas puts them in a weaker position since they would immediately be under the threat of land-based missiles/aircraft besides a very large number of a modern green navy (i.e smaller/short-ranged) missile-carrying craft. The US carrier fleet was mostly designed for the Cold War purpose of opposing Soviet attempts to intercept American troops/supplies crossing the Atlantic. In that role, it makes sense, but after 1991, it was forced a regime change role (which was mostly pointless since land-based aircraft could do most of the work) and now being tied into confrontations in the Persian Gulf/SCS/Taiwanese straits which is it is very poorly suited. Ultimately, carriers do give you a lot of leverage in certain circumstances, but it is far from infinite. --------------- Also, the future, much like the Cold War is going be about posturing and having leverage over your opponent. It is the reason why China will likely continue to emphasize carriers and more naval bases around the Indian ocean. Also as far as the US military goes, the most of enlisted men that saw serious combat (including NCOs) during the 2000s have steadily left and/or retired. There are some more elite forces that have seen continuous action but there are a smaller and smaller portion of the whole. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 13:23 on Jan 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:17
|
|
|
aircraft carriers give you incredible leverage against any enemy that has zero navy and no way to fight against you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
lol the United States literally murdered millions of Koreans because they thought if you kill enough people that you would end nationalist communist liberation wars. The United States dropped more bombs and ordnance on Korea than they did on the entirety of Germany and Japan in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
THS posted:aircraft carriers give you incredible leverage against any enemy that has zero navy and no way to fight against you. A navy without its own carriers would still at a disadvantage if the conflict took place in deep water, the problem is most of the flash points the US is worried about aren't in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific. It is why China has heavy fortified the South China Sea, it is a bad neighborhood for carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A navy without its own carriers would still at a disadvantage if the conflict took place in deep water, the problem is most of the flash points the US is worried about aren't in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific. It is why China has heavy fortified the South China Sea, it is a bad neighborhood for carriers. yeah well, the difference between a missile cruiser and an escort carrier is going to dissappear in the next decade with semi-autonomous drone intelligence, so that russian hunk of steel they bought is prolly gonna be more than enough
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
THS posted:the United States is incredibly effective at murdering literally millions of people with no air defenses. What's the last war that the United States fought where the enemy fought back on the same terms? WW2 Even in WW2 the enemy didn't fight back on the same terms since no one else really had long range bombers. I'd wager that that was the last time the US Navy had fewer losses due to friendly fire than enemy action though. In Korea the Soviet air force was actually involved so that was probably the last time the US air force didn't have complete air superiority in all instances?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
The Soviet airforce must have been really bad at their job because the US completely leveled Korea. Every northern town and city was bombed to rubble. They killed 20% of the population of the north according to Curtis Lemay
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
I was gonna say something about how there's this undercurrent of bitching and griping about how "rules of engagement" regarding beyond-visual-range missile fire in Vietnam meant that the US didn't always have complete air superiority, but I realized that's just an offshoot of the larger right-wing talking point of "if only those Washington bureaucrats let us off the chain we could have REALLY won the war" except applied to the air force, and doesn't jive with the incredible amount of damage inflicted on Vietnam (and Cambodia and Laos).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:The Soviet airforce must have been really bad at their job because the US completely leveled Korea. Every northern town and city was bombed to rubble. They killed 20% of the population of the north according to Curtis Lemay It mostly conducted before early 1951 when Soviets got seriously active in the air war. We had almost entirely annihilated the country by November 1950.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:The Soviet airforce must have been really bad at their job because the US completely leveled Korea. Every northern town and city was bombed to rubble. They killed 20% of the population of the north according to Curtis Lemay Sure, it's not like the Soviets then, or really ever, fully committed to helping out their allies and I didn't realize quite how large the estimated range of aircraft losses was. However, my point here is that the Korean war was probably the last time the US faced a conventional army that could maneuver without being completely debilitated by US air strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Crazy that North Korea seems hyper-militarized against outside aggression, and all over a misunderstanding that only left millions of Koreans dead 50 years ago. They're so wacky. It's impossible to understand their motives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It mostly conducted before early 1951 when Soviets got seriously active in the air war. We had almost entirely annihilated the country by November 1950. genericnick posted:Sure, it's not like the Soviets then, or really ever, fully committed to helping out their allies and I didn't realize quite how large the estimated range of aircraft losses was. However, my point here is that the Korean war was probably the last time the US faced a conventional army that could maneuver without being completely debilitated by US air strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:there's a nice subliminal flash of the party flag at 1:03. watch closely. this is the actual image:
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
talking about how dysfunctional the US MIC is kinda neglects that other countries' militaries tend to be even more corrupt and untested in actual war conditions i still lol at a bunch of internet leftists bigging up Iran and the US just nuking their leading military dude and we haven't heard a peep from them
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
They retaliated by shelling a US base in Iraq. Their response was restrained though, because despite the fact that Iran could win a defensive war against the US it would still be disastrous for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Uh that flag shows up in other scenes. It's just the one they used while filming. It's still propaganda imagery but it doesn't seem like they were trying to trick anyone with "subliminal" messaging. the DSA should do this //begin programming// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szjxpbGhjTM&t=109s
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Joseph_Morong/status/1350440514122731523?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It mostly conducted before early 1951 when Soviets got seriously active in the air war. We had almost entirely annihilated the country by November 1950. Huh is that the case? I would have thought that much more of it would have been when the US was getting pushed back by China’s counterattack when they entered the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
THS posted:Crazy that North Korea seems hyper-militarized against outside aggression, and all over a misunderstanding that only left millions of Koreans dead 50 years ago. They're so wacky. It's impossible to understand their motives. Real question; are you one of the people that believes North Korea didn’t fire the first shots of the war despite a preponderance of evidence? Like they just happened to have their entire military on the border ready to rumble for shits and giggles? America avoided giving South Korea heavy weapons and almost had their local forces completely wiped off the map as *a cunning ruse*? Like there’s a whole gently caress load wrong with how America conducts wars and especially like, everything loving America did during the Cold War, but an extremist Americentric interpretation of literally everything where other people have no agency at all is also dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Real question; are you one of the people that believes North Korea didn’t fire the first shots of the war despite a preponderance of evidence? Like they just happened to have their entire military on the border ready to rumble for shits and giggles? America avoided giving South Korea heavy weapons and almost had their local forces completely wiped off the map as *a cunning ruse*? is this an honest question lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Real question; are you one of the people that believes North Korea didn’t fire the first shots of the war despite a preponderance of evidence? Like they just happened to have their entire military on the border ready to rumble for shits and giggles? America avoided giving South Korea heavy weapons and almost had their local forces completely wiped off the map as *a cunning ruse*? gently caress you bitch
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
the US lost 10,000 combat aircraft in Vietnam. 3,700 of that was basically modern fixed wing jet aircraft, the rest mostly helicopters. we dont even loving have 10,000 combat aircraft to throw away anymore lol. The united state military cannot take any casualties and even keep functioning, its all boondogles, and there is just zero way to ramp any of this stuff up in time for wartime production. Outside of nukes and bullying people who cant fight back the US is a paper tiger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Huh is that the case? I would have thought that much more of it would have been when the US was getting pushed back by China’s counterattack when they entered the war. The Chinese counterattack was October/November 1950, the Russians started sending pilots in April of 1951. By the time Soviet pilots showed up, there wasn't that much left to bomb but it was still necessary to provide air cover for ground operations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Real question; are you one of the people that believes North Korea didn’t fire the first shots of the war despite a preponderance of evidence? Like they just happened to have their entire military on the border ready to rumble for shits and giggles? America avoided giving South Korea heavy weapons and almost had their local forces completely wiped off the map as *a cunning ruse*? I'm going to try to explain this to you. Try to consider how things were from the perspective of the north. First of all, by the end of World War 2, Korea had been a colony of the Japanese for decades. As the colonial government of Korea fell apart, the people of the entire peninsula proclaimed the "People's Republic of Korea". The government was led by both communists and nationalists. Mostly the former in the south, and mostly the latter in the north. The US crushed this government in the south and instead resurrected the institutions of Japan's colonial state. The colonial police and military were reconstituted and right wing dictator Syngman Rhee was installed. The US and its puppet government conducted massacres of real or suspected communists. This was the context in which the north, led by anti-Japanese guerilla Kim Il-Sung invaded. The US had crushed the democratic government of Korea and re-installed the Japanese colonial state, now under US command. So let me ask you. Do you really believe that invading, under these conditions, justified the US's invasion of the north and the extermination of 20% of its population? Red and Black has issued a correction as of 16:19 on Jan 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
look, we might have killed millions of korean civilians, but at least i can make up a fake justification for why this was a hard choice and america had to bomb every north korean city into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
GoLambo posted:the US lost 10,000 combat aircraft in Vietnam. 3,700 of that was basically modern fixed wing jet aircraft, the rest mostly helicopters. ok but have you considered most americans still think USA won that war
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
how do you invade your own land? libs are so god drat stupid
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The ROK invaded across the 38th parallel a year before the generally accepted beginning of the Korean conflict: quote:https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/1951/korea.htm We've been through this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Karl_Was_Right/status/1350321128183513089?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
I put /sino and /china in the same custom feed and read them at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Chinese counterattack was October/November 1950, the Russians started sending pilots in April of 1951. I was thinking more in terms of the timeline of the country having been destroyed as I thought in general it may have been more drawn out as territory changed hands several times and US forces there peaked. Chomskyan posted:So let me ask you. Do you really believe that invading, under these conditions, justified the US's invasion of the north and the extermination of 20% of its population? I'm both aware of the history and the general Northern perspective (completely omitting Russia and China and their objectives in the region and conflict and their place in things in your summary in such as way as to suggest this was purely a conflict between Real Korea and Puppet America Korea is perhaps questionable, but it's certainly true that the US kept a tighter leash on their satellite so it's not entirely unreasonable). Nothing justifies massive civilian casualties and American is and was poo poo and holt poo poo was Rhee a fucker, but yes, even then when one state starts a war with another by gathering their entire front line military and simultaneously sending it across the border to capture their neighboring state literally does justify an invasion to end the war of an allied (puppet of course in reality) by any reasonable metric. We've been through this. [/quote] I have no idea what book this is or anything about it and passages being highlighted means literally nothing. None of it makes any sense at all in the light of the fact that there were constant border conflicts killing thousands going on between the South and the North with crossings of the 38th by both sides, and the idea that the ROK was making a "dress rehearsal" to invade a hostile country with a military literally more than twice its size and vastly better equipped is completely laughable. It's fair that I shouldn't have used the term "first shot" because it's entirely possible that it was a border skirmish that marked the start of the North Korean invasion and the ROK may well have literally fired the first shot of that, but the massive preplanned and coordinated combined arms assault across the entire border immediately thereafter was clearly an intended invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
why wouldn't North Korea be really well-prepared for a war that they knew was coming? The idea that they had a bunch of plans and executed them well as soon as the conflict erupts works just as well as having it been prompted by recognizing the state of relations between them and the South
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
taking your own land back from compradors running death squads on your political allies is unequivocally good
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Reminder that the U.S. entire foreign policy throughout the cold war in east/south asia was based on the completely braindead domino theory that if we didn't intervene in korea and vietnam than the entire east would become commies.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Lady Militant posted:Reminder that the U.S. entire foreign policy throughout the cold war in east/south asia was based on the completely braindead domino theory that if we didn't intervene in korea and vietnam than the entire east would become commies. That was actually a totally rational fear and the policy was a great success, except what they meant with "communism" was "independent development".
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Nothing justifies massive civilian casualties and American is and was poo poo and holt poo poo was Rhee a fucker, but yes, even then when one state starts a war with another by gathering their entire front line military and simultaneously sending it across the border to capture their neighboring state literally does justify an invasion to end the war of an allied (puppet of course in reality) by any reasonable metric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:I'm both aware of the history and the general Northern perspective (completely omitting Russia and China and their objectives in the region and conflict and their place in things in your summary in such as way as to suggest this was purely a conflict between Real Korea and Puppet America Korea is perhaps questionable, I'm dying to hear your take on the use of nuclear bombs on Japan as in, the take will probably give me some hideous form of unforeseen cancer that makes my legs fall off
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 19:33
|
|
