Georgia under Russian attack...

I know some of you have seen this site but the talk about the Russians and their tactics reminded me of it. The waves of soldiers are still littered on the ground there and parts still come up each spring. I've aslo seen the same thing around Verdun and a few other WW1 sites where the west learned to adapt to modern war and not just send in wave after wave of soldiers.

unvolution wrote: thats... makes me very afraid seeing as i live in California... maybe ill move to wyoming and build me a underground hanger or 12

Stay away from Wyoming...

But, I'd rather have 10,000 Highly Motivated, highly moralled conscripts then 1,000 Soldiers any day...

Bunkered wrote: tallen702 wrote: unvolution wrote: thats... makes me very afraid seeing as i live in California... maybe ill move to wyoming and build me a underground hanger or 12 Unless you live in San Diego, L.A., or San Francisco, I wouldn't worry too much. Outside of those three cities and their military and industrial targets, there isn't much worth bombing/nuking/invading right at the start. I wish I could find the old "Soviet List" online somewhere. Back in the 80's we had a few Soviet defectors that brought with them the list of the top 20 targets in the US in the event of nuclear war. You'd have been surprised what they were most concerned with knocking out in the first wave. I live near Detroit... Not quite so much now, but in the 80's they probably would have bombed here early to take out our automotive plants.

22.6 miles away from SF according to google maps

tallen702 wrote: unvolution wrote: tallen702 wrote: Interesting point here: start taking notes kids, we'll come back to this lesson, but with China and the US someday. explain? China is only "friendly" with us right now because they can offload a ton of exported goods on us. That will all end someday and when it does, watch out. China has a population of over 1 Billion. In conventional warfare, we'd be royally @#$!ed. It would require us to use our nuclear arsenal to keep from simply being over-run by the human waves that the PRC would be capable of throwing at us. Of course, that's assuming they don't park a couple of boomers off the coasts and pound away at us before we even have enough warning to launch. I liked it better when we hated the USSR, but the PRC hated them even more.

You really have no Idea how Modern Warfare works. ! Billion Chinese doesn't mean 1 billion soldiers. And do you know the logistical nightmare that china People's Military Forces have? Why they couldn't even manage invading Taiwan let alone the US.

Evil Elvis wrote: You really have no Idea how Modern Warfare works. ! Billion Chinese doesn't mean 1 billion soldiers. And do you know the logistical nightmare that china People's Military Forces have? Why they couldn't even manage invading Taiwan let alone the US.

Did I say 1 billion soldiers? No. Lern 2 reed gudder!

I have an excellent "idea" of how modern warfare is waged EE. Of course, my ass riding in navy equipment isn't my idea of a career choice, so I doubt you'd care to hear from me.

China's military breaks down like this:
________________________________________________________
Military age:     18–49 (voluntary)

Conscription:      None

Available for military service:
342,956,265 males, age 18–49 (2005 est.),
324,701,244 females, age 18–49 (2005 est.)

Fit for military service:
281,240,272 males, age 18–49 (2005 est.),
269,025,517 females, age 18–49 (2005 est.)

Reaching military age annually:
13,186,433 males (2005 est.),
12,298,149 females (2005 est.)

Active personnel: 2,250,000
Reserve personnel: 800,000
Paramilitary: 3,969,000
Total: 7,024,000
________________________________________________________

US Breakdown:
________________________________________________________
Military age      17–45 years old

Available for military service:
67,742,879 males, age 18–49 (2005 est.),
67,070,144 females, age 18–49 (2005 est.)

Fit for military service:      
54,609,050 males, age 18–49 (2005 est.),
54,696,706 females, age 18–49 (2005 est.)

Reaching military age annually:
2,143,873 males (2005 est.),
2,036,201 females (2005 est.)

Active personnel:      1,426,713

Reserve personnel:      1,458,500

Total:                2,885,213
________________________________________________________

With just active and reserve personnel, the Chinese military out-guns us by just under 200,000 soldiers EE. As far as their "logistical nightmare" that you're talking about, while it would take an excessively large invasion fleet to bring them over to attack our shores, they have no shortage of arable land, energy sources, and strategic materials to make it possible. Once over here, it would be a matter of subjugation to achieve a continuous supply of food. However, chances are, they wouldn't even bother with invasion. They'd stand off and simply nuke our centers of commerce and production if they wanted to do away with us. China's a BIG country with a lot of usable land, a lot more than we have, and loss of relatively young economic and production centers wouldn't be nearly as big a blow to them as it would to us. They've got more people, more people = more production capability, more production means more materiel, more materiel ALWAYS means better capacity to wage war when conventional militaries are fighting.

I'd love to see/hear your take on the China question. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but the two biggest boys on the block always wind up coming to punches at some point. History repeats itself, it will happen.

Numbers don't mean much in modern warfare Tallen.

While your Coping and Pasting Google up how effective the massive Chinese charges where effective against Marines in Korea.

How one Division Surrounded was able to Fight back to the Sea with their equipment and wounded from the Chosin Reservoir.

How how under 300,000 troops where able to Invade a Country with the 4th Largest land Army at the Time and Obliterate them?

Modern war is 60% won from the Sky now days. With the new F-22 and JSF as well as the reorganization and reshuffling the US Navy is going under now days. And our advances in weapons such as the new Airborne Lazer and other killing machines. Now our soldiers will be linked and better armored I really don't see what some Conscripts that most don't have rifles who will get the hand me down type 56's once most of china's army upgrades to the type 56 bullpup rifle they developed and I hardly see a reason to shudder.

I am more worried about how much of our Debt they own. And other more realistic pressing issues such as how their industrialization is hurting the planet.

When it comes to a shooting war it' still Quality over Quantity. The better trained and equipped your soldiers are the better killing machines they will be.

According to Fox News and CNN, Russian armored columns have advanced to within 12 miles of the Capital, Tbilisi.

Russia denies that they are heading for the capital, and President Saakashvili says that Georgia will defend the city "to the last drop of blood."

Looks like this is still developing...

Evil Elvis wrote: I am more worried about how much of our Debt they own.

so they repo hawaii eventually.... no vacation to the islands

Linus wrote: Dune wrote: Furthermore, the last thing America needs to do is get involved there. Actually, it should be one of the first. There should be little to no tolerance to anyone who attacks an ally.

I know this is from a few pages back, but do you really think it would be a good idea for the U.S. to actively get involved in this conflict? We're stretched thin enough as it is right now. The last thing we need is another conflict, especially against Russia. Even though we have been fighting the Russians for years...we just had other countries do it for us.

Benjichang wrote: Linus wrote: Dune wrote: Furthermore, the last thing America needs to do is get involved there. Actually, it should be one of the first. There should be little to no tolerance to anyone who attacks an ally. I know this is from a few pages back, but do you really think it would be a good idea for the U.S. to actively get involved in this conflict? We're stretched thin enough as it is right now. The last thing we need is another conflict, especially against Russia. Even though we have been fighting the Russians for years...we just had other countries do it for us.

You missed the other part of the post where I said "Not all out war/conflict".

Using just words will get no where with a country as big as Russia.   Look at all the trouble we're having trying that with Iran.

If we put NATO troops in Georgia it proves a couple of things:

A) We help our allies by actions, not just words.
B) Russia wouldn't risk an invasion for fear of killing a NATO soldier.


The "stretched thin" argument doesn't apply. We wouldn't be actively occupying a country. We wouldn't actively participate in combat missions.


If you never back up your words with actions when challenged, no one will ever listen to you.

Edited by Linus - 13 August 2008 at 12:16pm