Could America fight a War?

[taurusowner]

This thread isn't prompted by anything other than my own curiosity about other's opinions.  Since Korea, America has not been in a true "war" with another nation of comparable capabilities.  Everything about our military now seems to be geared towards fighting in small regional conflicts against a vastly inferior but asymmetrical enemy.  Our vehicles, weapons, tactics, uniforms, etc are all about fighting insurgents in the desert or mountains.  In WWII and to some extent, Korea, the enemy of the US was on par with us.  Not so much any more.  We have fewer casualties in the entire Iraq/Afghanistan conflict for the past decade than in 1 day of WWII.  So I'm curious, how would we fare if a real war started now?  How would America do against an enemy with the same access to night vision, precision bombs, body armor, armored vehicles, UAVs, high tech aircraft, etc?  Lets say we had to fight China next week, how do you think we would fare?

Caveat: no WMDs.

[vaskidmark]

Could the USA get out of all the regional conflicts, peace-keeping assignments, disaster-rescue missions and other engagements so that the fighting forces could be consolidated against an "equal" foe?

Could the USA sustain any military effort through replacement of materiel and personnel, let alone provide the supply train necessary to move those items to the fighting front?

I'd have to say "No" in response to your question because the answer to my questions is another series of "No"s.  The USA cannot produce the materials of war, let alone move them to where the fighting might be taking place.  Our troops are currently spread paper-thin over multiple assignments for which I do not see am orderly withdrawal - despite the political ramblings and rumblings to the contrary.  Nor do I see the political will to consolidate forces and engage in a major head-to-head fight, even presuming our borders are breached by armed invaders.  (No, I do not foresee an armed invasion led by Cubans coming up through Mexico, as much as I enjoyed the movie.)

Your question is couched in terms that actually invalidate current military planning.  As I see things, we are still basing the control/prevention of a sustained world-wide conflict (USA v. PRC as you posit) with the use of WMDs and mutually-assured destruction.  The Mongolian hordes ride their ponies over the frozen Bering Straits.  We respond by nuking both strategic and geo-political targets.  The PRC responds by nuking Chicago and NYC.  We respond with thank-you notes and coordinates for San Francisco and Berkley.

Unless you really believe that the Cubans can move up through Mexico (yes - it was a great movie) I doubt there will be another major slugging match war.  Both sides (the USA and Everybody Else) have hired proxies living in areas where the employers have no real desire to settle so that the various factions can chip away at each other.

In truth the answers are much more complex, but I'm still up and very tired.

stay safe.

skidmark

[HankB]

The PRC responds by nuking Chicago and NYC.  We respond with thank-you notes and coordinates for San Francisco and Berkley.

Early thread win. 

[Sergeant Bob]

Early thread win.  

Yep. Thread's over!

[Gowen]

Game over man, game over.

[AJ Dual]

IMO, IF and it's a big IF, there was sufficient will to action with the current administration, we could probably mess any power or group of powers up with missiles, cruise missiles and airstrikes, naval power etc. to buy us enough time to get a sufficient conventional footing back to start the actual slugfest.

If you notice long-term trends, you'll see that there is A LOT of RFP activity and tests being done for what would have been traditonal nuclear delivery systems but used for conventional weaponry to give us anytime/anyplace strike capabilities.

Not exactly the best example, since it's more of an asymetric warfare solution, but there is work being done on the SM-3 missile which has become famous for shipboard ABM work, to convert it to an upper stage hypersonic glider with a conventional sub-500lb warhead/payload.

This is more of an IRBM insurgent/terrorist assassination tool, but you get the idea.

Also, an afterthought, but one might also want to consider the U.S.'s undeclared capabilities. Keep in mind that the highest tech systems we have now are products of the 80's and 90's mostly. I'd be floored if we don't have a rather significant stealth UAV/long-loiter cruise missile type of attack capability already.  The time frame of how long the F117-A was operational, but undeclared might provide some insight as to how long such a system may have been under wraps.

[Monkeyleg]

I would think that our intelligence capabilities are now such that a Pearl Harbor-style attack wouldn't be possible, and that we'd have sufficient indicators of an impending war to make needed changes. (Removing troops from other countries, etc).

I can't think of another country that would want to destroy Chicago, San Francisco and NYC, though. I'm sure our enemies know the pain these three already inflict upon us.

[lupinus]

Another equally important question isn't just could we, it's would we.

Americans no longer have the stomach for such things. Can you imagine Utah Beach or the Bulge happening today in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter? The general public and media would be out for anyone and everyone's heads, there would likely be investigations out the wazoo, and we'd loose all will to fight. Hell what we've taken in near a decade would have been a good week in WW2 or ONE good field battle in the Revolution or Civil war.

Without some major event making the general public hate an enemy and really making them feel the need to kill the bastards rather then blaming their own politicians, I don't see an America with the will to fight, forget the capability to fight.

[MillCreek]

I wonder how we would fare in a regional conflict against someone like the UK or Germany.  Clearly we have greater numbers, but they would be pretty darn competitive on a pound for pound basis.

[Gewehr98]

on a pound for pound basis

Until they ran out of pounds of Brits or Germans, that is...

[vaskidmark]

I would think that our intelligence capabilities are now such that a Pearl Harbor-style attack wouldn't be possible, and that we'd have sufficient indicators of an impending war to make needed changes. (Removing troops from other countries, etc).

I can't think of another country that would want to destroy Chicago, San Francisco and NYC, though. I'm sure our enemies know the pain these three already inflict upon us.

Dear $Diety, talk about the placement of opposing concepts.

#1 - just how well do you really believe we are at connecting the dots, and what evidence can you bring to the teble in support of that belief?  Remember, the absence of an event does not prove anything except the event is currently absent.  Why it is absent needs to be demonstrated.

#2 - So you agree that the PRC would nuke Berkley off the face of SoCal?  In spite of the pain already being inflicted by the other metro centers, are you aware of the impact theirvelimination would have on the running of the USA?  They were not mentioned just for the possible humor available, but because eliminating any of them does in fact carry the easy possibility of bringing the operation of the country to its knees.  Take out all 3 and it would take years to recover.

Now - for the amazement factor:  I'm amazed that anyone believes the USA has the manufacturing capacity to carry out a slugfest war with anybody, big or little.  Even if we could get Generalissimo Motors to stop churning out The Peoples' Cars and instead produce The Peoples' Tanks, we don't make the steel to build them or the ships to send them overseas if that's where the war is going to be fought.

Thank $Diety we have geniuses in the Pentagon.  [Foghorn Leghorn voice] That's a joke, son. [/Foghorn Leghorn voice]

stay safe.

skidmark

[Monkeyleg]

#2 - So you agree that the PRC would nuke Berkley off the face of SoCal?  In spite of the pain already being inflicted by the other metro centers, are you aware of the impact theirvelimination would have on the running of the USA?  They were not mentioned just for the possible humor available, but because eliminating any of them does in fact carry the easy possibility of bringing the operation of the country to its knees.  Take out all 3 and it would take years to recover.

I guess I should have added a sarcasm smiley.

As for our intelligence capabilities, I'm assuming that if we can stop terrorist plots against us, we have the capability to see troop and equipment buildups that would be a sign of a large military operation. We were able to see missiles in Cuba, and that was nearly 50 years ago.

[Angel Eyes]

#2 - So you agree that the PRC would nuke Berkley off the face of SoCal? 

Nitpick: Berkeley is not in southern California.

Moreover, I don't believe it's in China's best interests to start a major war with us. They're holding our debt.  The North Koreans are just crazy enough to do it, if they got a delivery system with enough range, and if the Chinese were unable or unwilling to rein them in.

Going a bit off-topic: the threat of stateless entities such as Al Qaeda is IMO much greater than a "traditional" war with another nation.

[MillCreek]

Until they ran out of pounds of Brits or Germans, that is...

Since ex-wife 2.0 was a Navy lifer, I spent some time in the clubs of Navy Base Puget Sound, Bangor, etc.  I can tell you that the USN subdrivers had a whole lot of respect for the Royal Navy subdrivers.  I was once chatting with a O-6 who had commanded a Trident and went through the Royal Navy sub Prospective Commanding Officers course as an exchange student.  He was of the opinion that the Royal Navy's PCO course was more difficult and placed much more emphasis on fighting the ship as opposed to the USN.  He blamed Rickover for creating the attitude that a USN subdriver was an engineer first and foremost.  He said the RN felt the role of the Captain was to lead and fight the ship and leave the engineers to have the lights on. 

Although I have no personal knowledge of his subject matter, I thought his comments were interesting.

[makattak]

Moreover, I don't believe it's in China's best interests to start a major war with us. They're holding our debt.  The North Koreans are just crazy enough to do it, if they got a delivery system with enough range, and if the Chinese were unable or unwilling to rein them in.

France was Germany's number one trading partner in 1939. It didn't make sense to go to war with them.

Yet, they did.

Keep in mind the decision to start a war is most often not the wisest course of action. It still happens.

[vaskidmark]

Nitpick: Berkeley is not in southern California.

Moreover, I don't believe it's in China's best interests to start a major war with us. They're holding our debt.  The North Koreans are just crazy enough to do it, if they got a delivery system with enough range, and if the Chinese were unable or unwilling to rein them in.

Going a bit off-topic: the threat of stateless entities such as Al Qaeda is IMO much greater than a "traditional" war with another nation.

OK, so my sense of California geography sucks.  But the, so does California.

I picked the PRC because I am not aware of any other major power with the resources to invade the USA.  If you know of one/some please feel free to replace PRC with your favorite candidate.

Angeleyes & Monkeyleg: Yes, nearly 50 years ago we saw missles in Cuba and made the Ruskies believe we would destroy lots of them and their property if they did not back down.  They believed us because, among other things, we were sitting across from each other in tanks all along Europe's major historical invasion routes.  The USSR does not exist any more and the USA has withdrawn significant forces and materiel from those bases to fund current operations in SW Asia.  Who ya got?

And Monkeyleg:  Got proof that we have actually stopped a major AlQueda attack cold?  Not some doofus with a couple of guns and a map showing where Ft. Dix is located off the Jersey Turnpike.  Remember the underpants bomber whose Daddy dropped a dime on him that we still did not stop - it was passengers & crew that derailed his plans, along with a defective fuse.  I said "Remember, the absence of an event does not prove anything except the event is currently absent.  Why it is absent needs to be demonstrated."  Please demonstrate that USA intelligence has actually stopped any major terrorist plot, or any verifiable plot by a major terrorist.  I'll be here waiting.

syay safe.

skidmark

[Monkeyleg]

Sorry, I don't get intelligence briefings. We do know that there have been plots to attack LA, the Brooklyn bridge, and other targets.

Churchill knew the Nazi's were going to bomb Coventry. The information was gained through the Allies' cracking of the German code. If he had tried to stop the Coventry bombing, it would have indicated that the code had been broken, so he let the city be bombed.

If Coventry had not been bombed, would that have been proof that the Allies hadn't broken the Nazi code?

[roo_ster]

Got proof that we have actually stopped a major AlQueda attack cold?  Not some doofus with a couple of guns and a map showing where Ft. Dix is located off the Jersey Turnpike. 

Our CIA interrogators who waterboarded the big three, of which KSM is most famous, managed to get enough intel to quash several bigtime operations.

Since then, though, we haven't had much come out that shows our intel in good light.

My opinion is that our human intel is weak.

[Parker Dean]

France was Germany's number one trading partner in 1939. It didn't make sense to go to war with them.

Yet, they did.

Keep in mind the decision to start a war is most often not the wisest course of action. It still happens.

Yeah, but France wasn't the objective. "Lebensraum" in the East was. That's why it was necessary to roll up Czechoslovakia and Poland in order to reach the areas of the Soviet Union they really did want and have a contiguous country out of all of it. Hitler thought (with reason, thank you Neville Chamberlain et al) that Britain and France were bluffing about Poland.

[Gewehr98]

Please demonstrate that USA intelligence has actually stopped any major terrorist plot, or any verifiable plot by a major terrorist.  I'll be here waiting.

You'll be waiting a pretty damned long time.  Hell, I'm not allowed to write about what I did in my TS/SCI job for 75 years after I retired, per my non-disclosure agreement I signed with Uncle Sam.  You think they're gonna declassify the particulars of thwarted Al-Qaeda terrorism attempts while they're still fighting those same bad actors?  

If so, maybe I have some beachfront property in Idaho to sell, too.  

I sometimes think that people really should take an unclassified look at how comprehensive our intelligence organizations really are.  I know folks I talk to face-to-face have no idea that my agency did what it did, and with the aircraft and science assets specifically allocated - and we were just small potatoes in the general ISR scheme of things.  Suffice it to say, we're not as deaf, dumb, and blind as they'd make us out to be.

[Gewehr98]

My opinion is that our human intel is weak.

HUMINT ain't cheap.  None of the INTs are, but HUMINT especially so.  People tend to get killed getting the info...

[MechAg94]

France was Germany's number one trading partner in 1939. It didn't make sense to go to war with them.

Yet, they did.

Keep in mind the decision to start a war is most often not the wisest course of action. It still happens.

First, France and Germany had a recent history of fighting each other even before WWI. 

2nd, I would think that China would have a lot of problems if they lost us as a trading partner.  Would their economy handle it?

[zahc]

Without some major event making the general public hate an enemy and really making them feel the need to kill the bastards rather then blaming their own politicians, I don't see an America with the will to fight, forget the capability to fight.

QFT. Just think about WWII, we got to sit and read newspapers about the war "over there" for a good many months, without doing anything, plus we got attacked. It's hard to make the case that we started the WWII problem ourself, unlike any war today.

[Monkeyleg]

WWII wasn't even all that popular here at home. There were a lot of isolationists, especially early on, who wanted to let Europe handle it on their own.

[AJ Dual]

WWII wasn't even all that popular here at home. There were a lot of isolationists, especially early on, who wanted to let Europe handle it on their own.

Indeed. WWII looks like the "good war" (from an American perspective) just through the lens of history.

And in the aftermath, the press was frequently critical with the occupation of Europe, old 1945-46 news articles and editorials could literally have "Germany" replaced with "Iraq" and you could run them in today's papers/websites and no one would notice the difference.