What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

Strategic bombing can only be useful if you bomb strategic target. Like oil refinery, troop marshalling area, road junction, railway station, factory and so on.

The thing about strategic bombing is that you are targeting your enemy ability to rage war, say impeding their movement speed by hitting railway yard, station or road junction. Which most of these targets usually deep inside enemy territories. Which mean you will need a large aircraft with some survivablity deep inside enemy territories to do the job.

Strategic bomber can also perform tactical mission, such as operation arc light which the US uses B-52 to act as close air support for bases and attack in Vietnam until the end of hostilities.

The question is, would Russia be beneficial in a strategic campaign again the Ukrainian?

Ukraine did not have much industrial base left, most of the equipment they are using are either repaired by the West or in the field. and the there aren't really any strategic target left, on the other hand, movement target are quite spread out due to the fact that Ukraine is quite big in size, which mean you will need to penetrate deeper into Ukraine heartland to be able to reach for those target. And that without complete air superiority., it more or less suicide.

Let's put it this way, US enjoy complete air superiority, USAF still loses 30 B-52s over Vietnam...

US brought Imperial Japan to its knees by wiping out Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo. Japanese leadership witnessed entire cities being erased and decided to give up. American troops arrived in Japan without having the need to fight costly battles and facing Japanese insurgency. This is the impact of strategic bombing.

Even in Vietnam, Operation Linebacker II in 1972 showed that Vietcong could be defeated: Vietcong suffered heavy losses and its mission to retake South Vietnam was delayed by 3 years. Vietcong came to the negotiation table but Nixon administration demanded one thing - withdrawal of American troops without incident. Vietcong was like this is it? Tears of joy....

Of-course, you need political will and boots on the ground to seize on the gains provided by strategic bombing missions to settle a war on acceptable terms like a winner.

But Americans have become too woke to fight like a side that should be feared as witnessed in Afghanistan.

Post in thread 'Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2' https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russia-ukraine-war-news-and-developments-part-2.746450/post-14379108

Post in thread 'Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2' https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russia-ukraine-war-news-and-developments-part-2.746450/post-14379145

Post in thread 'Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2' https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russia-ukraine-war-news-and-developments-part-2.746450/post-14379242



Even in Iraq, US-led forces had to conduct a large number of operations to overcome Iraqi insurgency phases and to reshape political landscape of the country.

The Theory of Limited War is a costly method with subpar outcomes.
 
.
Russia misinterpreting signals that somebody not siding with EU/NATO/US does not mean those countries are in Russia's camp. They are (and rightfully so) not on either side.

 
. .
US brought Imperial Japan to its knees by wiping out Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo. Japanese leadership witnessed entire cities being erased and decided to give up. American troops arrived in Japan without having the need to fight costly battles and facing Japanese insurgency. This is the impact of strategic bombing.

Even in Vietnam, Operation Linebacker II in 1972 showed that Vietcong could be defeated: Vietcong suffered heavy losses and its mission to retake South Vietnam was delayed by 3 years. Vietcong came to the negotiation table but Nixon administration demanded one thing - withdrawal of American troops without incident. Vietcong was like this is it? Tears of joy....

Of-course, you need political will and boots on the ground to seize on the gains provided by strategic bombing missions to settle a war on acceptable terms like a winner.

But Americans have become too woke to fight like a side that should be feared as witnessed in Afghanistan.
Well, those are different war and different time.

Let me tell you this, a friend of mine who I went to ROTC with just completed a staff college course in Army War College 3 or 4 years ago, he told me in war college, they were basically teaching two ways to fight wars. One way is how you would fight as a military, and the other way is how you would fight war if you are a politician

Being woke have nothing really much to do with warfighting capability, it's all about political sense, even before the term "woke" is coined, we have long been fighting war within the norm of political spectrum. I mean, look at what happened to us after the Battle of Mogadishu in 1992? In the old days, we would be going back in with a few divisions and take them all out and come out with Mohammad Aidid head on a stick after they slaughter the ranger and the Delta. We didn't do it because we fear that would not go well in front of the camera, I mean, pissing off the entire country of Somalia and you will have a lot of dead Somalian you are going to see on TV. On the other hand, what's would that do anyway? They are pissed already. It's about revenge, it's about you kill 18 of us, we kill 18000 of you, that's what war is about if we skip that politic BS

As I explained on the other thread with another member, we don't fight war that way anymore, to a point where we are scare of casualty, both military and civilian, I mean, okay, if you think you are going to lose your army, that's a valid reason, but you are scare of losing maybe 1% of your army, that's stupid, you can't fight war without casualty, and if you are scare of having casualty on your side, then you never should have fight a war to begin with. And to care about the enemy civilian is simply absurd. I mean, they wanted to kill us, and just because they aren't holding a weapon at the time we shoot them, or we didn't PID the exact shooter before we lit up a crowd, that mean bad optics?

This is how we fight war now, it's not about woke, this is not about liberalism, this is about Politician in charge of a war they have no reason to be in. Because Politician is not about winning war, they are about winning election, and for them, soldier and military are a toss around, I mean, there are no point for any politician to do a Genghis Khan and go complete ruthless and win a war only to lose an election back home. That's because ruthless = bad optics = bad press = bad re-election campaign = losing your job.

This is never about woke or what, Trump was not woke, he still sign that peace treaty with Taliban and that's why he is now gone (that and many other different things). And it will remain that way if politician is in charge of our military,
 
.
US brought Imperial Japan to its knees by wiping out Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo. Japanese leadership witnessed entire apans to its knee was being erased and decided to give up. American troops arrived in Japan without having the need to fight costly battles and facing Japanese insurgency. This is the impact of strategic bombing.
japan was ready to surrender way before Hiroshima and Nagasaki . a certain government just wanted to test its newest toys
what brought japan to its knee was the fact they didn't had resource and fuel and basics to continue the war . after the defeat of Japanese navy in pacific it was the end for them , they were not able to procure those materials that was fueling their war machine they had no means to continue the war anymore.
 
.
Well, those are different war and different time.

Let me tell you this, a friend of mine who I went to ROTC with just completed a staff college course in Army War College 3 or 4 years ago, he told me in war college, they were basically teaching two ways to fight wars. One way is how you would fight as a military, and the other way is how you would fight war if you are a politician

Being woke have nothing really much to do with warfighting capability, it's all about political sense, even before the term "woke" is coined, we have long been fighting war within the norm of political spectrum. I mean, look at what happened to us after the Battle of Mogadishu in 1992? In the old days, we would be going back in with a few divisions and take them all out and come out with Mohammad Aidid head on a stick after they slaughter the ranger and the Delta. We didn't do it because we fear that would not go well in front of the camera, I mean, pissing off the entire country of Somalia and you will have a lot of dead Somalian you are going to see on TV. On the other hand, what's would that do anyway? They are pissed already. It's about revenge, it's about you kill 18 of us, we kill 18000 of you, that's what war is about if we skip that politic BS

As I explained on the other thread with another member, we don't fight war that way anymore, to a point where we are scare of casualty, both military and civilian, I mean, okay, if you think you are going to lose your army, that's a valid reason, but you are scare of losing maybe 1% of your army, that's stupid, you can't fight war without casualty, and if you are scare of having casualty on your side, then you never should have fight a war to begin with. And to care about the enemy civilian is simply absurd. I mean, they wanted to kill us, and just because they aren't holding a weapon at the time we shoot them, or we didn't PID the exact shooter before we lit up a crowd, that mean bad optics?

This is how we fight war now, it's not about woke, this is not about liberalism, this is about Politician in charge of a war they have no reason to be in. Because Politician is not about winning war, they are about winning election, and for them, soldier and military are a toss around, I mean, there are no point for any politician to do a Genghis Khan and go complete ruthless and win a war only to lose an election back home. That's because ruthless = bad optics = bad press = bad re-election campaign = losing your job.

This is never about woke or what, Trump was not woke, he still sign that peace treaty with Taliban and that's why he is now gone (that and many other different things). And it will remain that way if politician is in charge of our military,

Yes, I see your point and get it.

My interpretation is this:

How you fight like a military = War-winning strategy

How you fight like a politician = Woke strategy


If you are too concerned about optics and appealing to woke cowards then best not to fight a war and drag it through the years until acceptable outcome. The Theory of Limited War is a costly method with subpar outcomes.

Even in Iraq, US-led forces had to conduct a large number of operations to overcome Iraqi insurgency phases and to reshape political landscape of the country. But look at the amount of time and funds invested in this mission. And Americans still have limited political clout and problems in the country.


This is why US needs to rethink how to fight a war next time.

Pakistan also showed similar problem in War On Terror while confronting Taliban groups. Talks, Talks, and Talks.
 
.
Even in Iraq, US-led forces had to conduct a large number of operations to overcome Iraqi insurgency phases and to reshape political landscape of the country. But look at the amount of time and funds invested in this mission.

And in the end, they pretty much installed a communist into power, and undid everything.
 
.
Yes, I see your point and get it.

My interpretation is this:

How you fight like a military = war-winning strategy

How you fight like a politician = woke strategy


If you are too concerned about optics and appealing to woke cowards then best not to fight a war and drag it through the years until acceptable outcome. The Theory of Limited War is a costly method with subpar outcomes.

Even in Iraq, US-led forces had to conduct a large number of operations to overcome Iraqi insurgency phases and to reshape political landscape of the country. But look at the amount of time and funds invested in this mission. And Americans still have limited political clout and problems in the country.


This is why US needs to rethink how to fight a war next time.

Pakistan also showed similar problem in War On Terror while confronting Taliban groups. Talks, Talks, and Talks.
Again, this is not about woke, both spectrums did the same thing, be it republican or democrats.

Woke is about social inequality, about over-righteousness of social issue, again all those are mostly not related to the reason why we fight war that way, as I said, that was a long-entrenched problem, and my friend went to AWC during Trump presidency.

The problem is not how we fight war, the problem is how the public behave and how they see war. War for the general public is seen as unnecessary. The general public have no interest in war, and have no stomach for one, that is the problem. In the old days, as Denis Leary said, an average American joe cares about 3 things. Football, Porno and Books about war. You cannot effectively fight war if you remain democratic, you have to switch that off and become a dictator if you want to win a war, because all that you do is care about nothing but winning.

And we have been doing this since probably 1960s.
 
. .

THE BEST US INVESTMENT | Massive Drone Attack. Frontline Updates. Military Summary For 2023.05.28

 
.
japan was ready to surrender way before Hiroshima and Nagasaki . a certain government just wanted to test its newest toys
what brought japan to its knee was the fact they didn't had resource and fuel and basics to continue the war . after the defeat of Japanese navy in pacific it was the end for them , they were not able to procure those materials that was fueling their war machine they had no means to continue the war anymore.

This is Woke revisionism and propaganda.


World War II would not have concluded with mere peace talks. Imperial Japanese were willing to fight till the end. Strategic bombing missions were crucial to defeating Axis Powers in the war. But Entertainment Industry is focused on telling infantry stories. And American Woke Academic cowards have self-blaming mentality and are awarded shields for self-blaming accounts instead of good research. Reality is dark and warranted tough decisions. World War II wasn't won with humanitarian considerations but with COLD decision-making and brutal applications of power. Allied Powers were not humanitarian from any perspective. Both Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin were mass murderers. The Chinese were also fighting each other and the Japanese took advantage of the Chinese Civil War. Americans had no choice but to be brutal in view of Pearl Harbor and fighting highly motivated enemies but losses in men and material were heavy and there was pressure to come up with new and more brutal applications of power to win the war.
 
.
Again, this is not about woke, both spectrums did the same thing, be it republican or democrats.

Woke is about social inequality, about over-righteousness of social issue, again all those are mostly not related to the reason why we fight war that way, as I said, that was a long-entrenched problem, and my friend went to AWC during Trump presidency.

The problem is not how we fight war, the problem is how the public behave and how they see war. War for the general public is seen as unnecessary. The general public have no interest in war, and have no stomach for one, that is the problem. In the old days, as Denis Leary said, an average American joe cares about 3 things. Football, Porno and Books about war. You cannot effectively fight war if you remain democratic, you have to switch that off and become a dictator if you want to win a war, because all that you do is care about nothing but winning.

And we have been doing this since probably 1960s.

The Public you see has become Woke and sensitive. It sees war through the prevalent mindset. This is why US wasted huge sums of money attempting to civilize cavemen in Afghanistan with concerns about women rights and such. And what is the outcome?

I believe in Human Rights as well. But I am against wasteful spending and poorly executed conflicts. Fight a war like you mean it and then think about rebuilding a region. Do not leave things behind the way they were if you want to see real change.

Trump pretends to be tough but he does not have temperament for the war. Bring troops home and kiss them. Cry me a river.

Biden is older and can still stand his ground.
 
. . .

Donbass Zugzwang | The Russians Advances... Everywhere. Military Summary And Analysis For 2023.05.28

 
.
Back
Top Bottom