Two Front War

[Revenge2003]

For years the Pentagon has insisted the the U.S. be prepared to fight a two front war if necessary. Now the possiblity exsists with both Iraq and North Korea. Is the US military capable of a two front war anymore or has it been reduced through budget cuts to just handling one thing at a time?

 

[p_p_man]

For years the Pentagon has insisted the the U.S. be prepared to fight a two front war if necessary. Now the possiblity exsists with both Iraq and North Korea. Is the US military capable of a two front war anymore or has it been reduced through budget cuts to just handling one thing at a time?

Before much longer I think you'll find the US fighting on far more than two fronts...

ppman

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Where the fuck is Frimost when we need him?

 

[modest mouse]

North korea talks big, now saying they are 'entitled' to first strike ont eh US, but they dont pose much of a threat. Yes their nuke capability is dangerous, mostly because they could/would sell it.

But as they isolate themselves from Russia and China with increased rhetoric, and continually beg for food/money from the US... their stance weakens. They'll esclalate but somehow I think the uS could mount an air war against them with little problem.

ENough to fracture the Govt/military enough to provide new leadership. The relatiosn with China are the key as US invovlvment so close to taiwan will make them nervous and want to get invovled 'behind the scenes' more than they already are.

The US could mount actions against Iraq and North Korea at teh same time provided Korea is mostly an air bombing campaign with ground defenses alogn the border with South Korea and naval presence. Ground troops are another matter as the numbers would require more call-ups.

But Im confident that the US could provide massive military support within 6 months if the military machine is throttled up. That that anyone wnats that or that I support it but the US military is still a strong force capable of serious and permanent damage.

Numbers may have been dwindled but the technology and training of the men is still top-notch.

 

[REDWAVE]

Two, three, many Vietnams!

How true, p p man: Bush is about to open a fourth front, and there could be several more before World War Three (already in progress) ends. A guerilla war of resistence to U.S. occupation is going on in Afghanistan. In Palestine, Israel's war of genocide and racial cleansing against the Palestinians rages on, and will no doubt greatly intensify once the U.S. attacks Iraq. The U.S. is not directly involved in that war, but since it funds and supplies the Israeli military, and has build it up into THE regional superpower of the Middle East, the U.S. is involved. Finally, there is the relatively little noticed Andean front. In Colombia, Uribe's death squads slaughter peasants, union organizers, leftists, etc., waging war on the people there. In neighboring Venezuela, a revolt of the rich has, so far unsuccessfully, attempted to topple the populist Hugo Chavez, with the hand of the puppetmaster CIA clearly discernible in the background.

Two, three, many Vietnams! Many defeats for U.S. imperialism!

 

[modest mouse]

Redwave, are you saying the US should get involved in all of those places?

 

[miles]

North Korea is economically powerless. They have no money. People are starving while all the country's resources are poured into the military. They desperately want world recognition, and the only way they can get it is by saber rattling.

I'm not the least bit worried about them. We'll slip them a few billion dollars in aid and they will go back under their rock and behave for another ten years. It's a facade.

 

[miles]

The Delusional Duo: ppman and fredwave

 

[SINthysist]

Ya'll confusing a doctrine of fighting two REAL wars in a world with few REAL combatants.

So taking on those two don't rise to the level of fighting on two fronts.

 

[REDWAVE]

MM

Redwave, are you saying the US should get involved in all of those places?

No, I'm saying the U.S. is involved in those places, directly or indirectly. Of course, I call for all U.S. troops to be brought home, and used only for defense of the U.S. against possible invasion (which is highly unlikely).

 

[modest mouse]

Ya'll confusing a doctrine of fighting two REAL wars in a world with few REAL combatants.

So taking on those two don't rise to the level of fighting on two fronts.

I dont suspect we will see anything like the two fronts of WWII ever again.

In such a case the US alone has an unmatched wealth of resources and the means to deliver their full brunt onto an enemy. Take into consideration our traditional moder allies, Britain, Canada, Oz, New Zealand and very possibly Japan ina manufacturing sense... and you have a significant enough reason why a scenario of a two front world war will not happen in this age.

Of course the real reason is technology and the invovlment of World bodies at earlier times in a 'problem' than every before.

 

[Revenge2003]

Ya'll confusing a doctrine of fighting two REAL wars in a world with few REAL combatants.

So taking on those two don't rise to the level of fighting on two fronts.

True these two countries are not on the level of a Germany or Japan during WWII, but for Iraq we are committing a huge number of men and resources. If North Korea decides to take advantage of the situation while we are fighting Iraq, would there be anything left in our cupboard to fight them. We have or will have 6 carrier groups near Iraq when this begins, what's left to patrol the rest of the world much less begin an air campaign over North Korea. We only have 40,000 men to defend South Korea and they are facing a million man army in North Korea. Granted they have little in terms of supplies, ie gas, food, etc....but they can obtain them by invading the South can't they?

 

[SINthysist]

I call for all US troops to be brought home...

We'll build a Triumphal Arch, have a big parade, march some prisoners around, display Saddam's remains, his WMD's, loose them on the French...

 

[REDWAVE]

A new kind of war

It has often been said the "war on terror," which I am calling World War Three, is "a new kind of war," and although it's become somewhat of a cliche, there is some truth to it. It's often been said that generals fight the last war, not the current one. So far, WW3 has been a very different war from WW2, just as WW2 was quite different from WW1. It is a mobile, rolling war of relatively "low intensity" (although still quite lethal!) conflict, not a war where massive standing armies confront each other. So far, it has been non-nuclear-- but that may change soon. So far, it has been kept limited to a few areas-- but that may also change soon.

Bring the war home! Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!

 

[p_p_man]

Take into consideration our traditional moder allies, Britain, Canada, Oz, New Zealand and very possibly Japan ina manufacturing sense... and you have a significant enough reason why a scenario of a two front world war will not happen in this age.

The problem with that cosy thought is that the countries you mention have long since been organising themselves into different blocs to the old traditional ones.

That's one reason why America has to go begging for allies nowadays and prove her justification for any aggression she wants to make.

You were sleeping for far too long whilst the rest of the world moved forward...

ppman

 

[modest mouse]

The problem with that cosy thought is that the countries you mention have long since been organising themselves into different blocs to the old traditional ones.

That's one reason why America has to go begging for allies nowadays and prove her justification for any aggression she wants to make.

You were sleeping for far too long whilst the rest of the world moved forward...

True the blocs are different and changing.

But Im talking about a war ona much larger scale when alliances are easily formed, as are enemies.

Of course its all speculation.

 

[Frimost]

We can’t win a two-front war simultaneously if the enemy combatants were Iraq, Iran, or Syria and the other was North Korea. The distances are too great, our supply line stretched too far, and our troops and equipment but most of all our transportation network stretched too thin over too wide an area with too much work to be done.

If the goal is to win one war quickly and easily (the one in the Middle east) and to just fight a delaying action in Korea until victory in the Gulf which would then allow a reallocation of our assets to The Korean Peninsula to then win that war as well we could probably do it without too much difficulty.

 

[Frimost]

REDWAVE has finally passed over into the cartoon realm, a pathetic caricature of himself much like a puppet on a string during a comedic show for children.

Uribe is waging war on the bloodthirsty communist terrorists (FARC, ELN, and EPL), They are ignorant extremists with no popular support isolated in the bush that the people despise and will rejoice when they are finally annihilated from the face of the earth.

 

[teddybear4play]

Walking. Chewing gum.

Piece of cake.

Since the "War on Terror" has no fronts, this cliché is nothing more than a hackneyed line of bullshit tossed out as a final gasp by those people determined to prevent the U.S. from acting in its own interests.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

We can’t win a two-front war simultaneously if the enemy combatants were Iraq, Iran, or Syria and the other was North Korea. The distances are too great, our supply line stretched too far, and our troops and equipment but most of all our transportation network stretched too thin over too wide an area with too much work to be done.

If the goal is to win one war quickly and easily (the one in the Middle east) and to just fight a delaying action in Korea until victory in the Gulf which would then allow a reallocation of our assets to The Korean Peninsula to then win that war as well we could probably do it without too much difficulty.

Christ you're making sense for once...

The only thing I disagree with is your assumption that once one war is done and dusted America can then move onto the next. If only it was as neat and tidy as that...

What would you do? Leave an occupying force? Rely on a puppet government? Ignore the protests of other countries, protests that could easily turn to violent action, as America marches across the world?

And wars have a habit of popping up in the most unexpected places...

ppman

 

[Frimost]

We have enough troops to station a Rapid Reaction Brigade (or an entire division) to back up the Iraqi democratic government we leave in place, which will have remnants of the current Iraqi army as well as armed Kurds groups and Southern Shiite rebels protecting it. As long as Iran does not launch a full-scale invasion it will be fine and we can spare enough soldiers to keep a relative peace while still fighting Korea in Asia.

What we would really have to worry about is fighting Iraq, then North Korea launching a war on a second front...AND THEN China taking advantage of BOTH of those wars to launch it’s bid to recapture Taiwan.

 

[Frimost]

the relatively little noticed Andean front. In Colombia, Uribe's death squads slaughter peasants, union organizers, leftists, etc., waging war on the people there.

Let's see what REDWAVE's heros are up to now...

Colombia club explosion kills nine

Well, what do you know, killing innocent civilians again, gee who would have thunk it?

Oh yeah, the people just love those fucking commies bombing buildings full of innocent women and children.