Is full scale conventional war now obsolete?

[outrun]

Just points I have been pondering.

All the major powers now have nukes, and the story goes nukes have kept a silent peace between them. The only alternative being the decimation (at the bare minimum) of both sides if one did anything stupid.

Terrorism and guerrilla warfare seems to be the prime tactic used by any enemy to taunt goverments and armies. (since full scale conventional face offs are becoming less likely?)

 

[Mystic]

Nuclear war becomes unacceptable once both sides have nuclear weapons. Of course, terrorists do not care. If they had nuclear weapons such weapons could easily be a first choice for them.

But conventional armies are still needed. There are countries that could potentially become danagerous to us in the future, such as China. And we had to have a powerful conventional army to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afganistan.

 

[GSV]

It is an interesting question but the safe bet is no. You have to maintain the capability. Given the qualitative edge the US and certain other Western states have it is less enticing for a nation to want to square off.

Conventional forces will continue to exist but they will be "lighter" and more mobile. Rapid deployment will be key and this will make changes to the armor needed. M1A3s are great but they are too heavy and they require too much in the way of a logistic train. Armored Corps may soon consist of two light divisions and 1 heavy.

We did see precursors to this in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Against the Taliban we primarily used air power to support native ground troops. In Iraq you saw two and a half divisions invade and topple a nation. This is unprecedented. 10 years ago I doubt the Joint Cheifs would have gone along with such a plan.

[ February 18, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: GSV ]

 

[mnztr]

I would say that conventional war against the US has become obsolete. I doubt there has ever been a time in history where a superpower had such a technological and quantitive edge over any rivals. Nuclear weapons are pretty much unusable as the political fallout of first use would be massive. Pretty much any conventional army can be easily swatted by the US, which leaves unconventional war as the only option to those who want to oppose the US.

 

[Al]

Its a mute point. We are being invaded across our boarders at this moment. It would appear that any type of army we have is irrelivant, as our leaders choose to avoid the confrontation.

 

[TooSlick]

Someone a lot smarter than I once said: "Only the dead have seen the end of war ..."

The problem is that human nature hasn't changed much in the past few thousand years and the temptation to take what you neighbor has by force is as strong as ever. In addition, the great religions of the world have always been in conflict and this conflict is as strong as ever.

TS

 

[Neonmike22]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mnztr:
I doubt there has ever been a time in history where a superpower had such a technological and quantitive edge over any rivals.

---

Rome perhaps?

 

[labman]

I am working Dreadnought by Robert Massie. In the late 19th century Germany had the strongest army in europe, but England ruled the seas. None of the other countries in europe could do much in the rest of the world that England opposed. This interfered with Germany's colonial adventures. Germany was also helpless to intervene in the Boer War.

I always knew much of the royalty of Europe were related. I never realized that as a teenager, Kaiser Wilheim spent much of his summers with the British fleet, and felt slighted by his Uncle Bertie. He also envied his Grandmothers fleet, and when he inherited the throne, set to building his own. W.W.I was a family spat.

By that time, England had so dominated the seas, none of navy personnel had any battle experience. After Nelson whipped the French and Spanish, nobody challenged them until the rise of Germany. Many spent their life in the navy without ever firing a shot at another ship.

 

[outrun]

Well the point i was trying to boil down to is this.

I know I shouldnt but as many people we have glorified war...specifically our decisive involvement in the Second World War.

We will we ever see fighting on such a massive scale?

Or is that a long by gone era and i am just glorifying the past.

 

[mnztr]

quote:

---

Rome perhaps?

---

Romes advantage was in tactics and quantity, they still used generally the same implements of war as their rivals (swords, arrows some seige engines etc). No US rival has the technology to match the US . Sure, Europe and Japan probably can, but they are allies. Still, when you think about it, American dominance has been very brief so far when compare to other empires (Rome, Britan, Mongol, etc....etc). Yes I agree there will be more wars, but they will be largely fought between 3rd world countries. Kinda sad really, like stray dogs fighting over scraps.

 

[mnztr]

Another thing about the US that is unprecedented is its ability to field such a powerful military while delivering a relatively high standard of living (without the use of slavery) to its citizens. I think that is a result of industrial technology.

 

[ex_MGB]

Henry Wallace's "Century of the Common Man" has drawn to a close and with it, the Age of Mass Warfare.

Today's "conventional" warfare is unconventional by historic standards, conscript masses are but cannon fodder on today's battlefield.

The challenges today are just as great, if not more complex, in that the scope of the battlefield has enlarged.

[ February 19, 2004, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: ex_MGB ]

 

[mnztr]

I agree, war has become much more equipment intensive. Simply throwing masses of men at a defended target is over in the western world. Defence has also become much more complicated with smart weapons and powerful infantry weapons. Why charge a machine gun nest when you can just blast it with a TOW missile?

 

[ex_MGB]

The "war nerd" had an interesting take on the strictly military phase of the Iraq campaign. He suggests that at first the U.S. went a bit heavy on the Rumsfeld transformational "war lite" approach (light infantry/attack helicopters). The Iraqis put up a bit more of a fight than what was anticipated and things slowed down on the road to Baghdad. Then, in Gary Brecher's own words:

"What happened after that was classic American military initiative: the generals on the ground took over and did it the right way, the way it should've been done in the first place. If you read military history, you know one of the constants for American armies is a rough start followed by a really impressive learning curve. Just compare the First and Second Bull Run, or Pusan and Inchon. That shaky first week had one positive effect: Rumsfeld finally took his hands off the steering wheel and let the experts do it their way. Instead of trying to do a Wehrmacht-style blitzkrieg, they did it the way American armies do best: poured a rain of fire down on the territory they wanted to occupy and then sent the armor in. And it worked, like it always does. They did a great ******* job of it. No army on the planet could've done it one tenth that well."

I cannot imagine being at the receiving end of one weeks worth of a full scale USAF air assault in a desert environment with no where to run and no where to hide.

Time and again the Roman legions were stymied by the light Arab cavalry and their magnificent Arabians. Kerosene and gas turbines have changed all that...

[ February 21, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: ex_MGB ]