Syrian Strikes Would Battle-Test Chinese Radars

[Genesis]

Fine...So you look like US. Any body can don body armor, have a sh1tload of 'tactical' gear, and drive around in Hummer clones.

But the point that you and the rest of the Chinese members here consistently avoid is -- institutional memory.

Institutional memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PLA have only a 50-60 yrs library of its own unique collection while the US have its own since 1776. When it comes to warfare in all of its entirety, from people to doctrines to technology, China's institutional memory regarding warfare ended at the same time the Americans revolted against the British. China was carved up into colonial pieces by superior military might from other countries and pretty much ruled that way until the end of WW II. The emergence of a new Chinese military effectively did a 'reset' on that history but essentially the PLA have no philosophical foundation for its doctrines. It had to import it from the Soviets. The major conflicts the PLA was involved in: Korea, Viet Nam, and then Viet Nam again, the PLA broke no new grounds in terms of doctrines and technology. New grounds mean something that gave pause to theorists, from civilian to military, as to how a military managed to gain a superior position over its adversary and compelled potential adversaries to reconsider their positions and relationships to this military.

Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg is an example. But the Confederacy's use of the submarine against the Union ships back in the American Civil War is not such an example, despite the fact that it was very much the first use of the submarine in a war. The reason is that the sub's use was limited and did not produce any tactical advantageous positions for the Confederacy in that conflict. Whereas with blitzkrieg, while itself is not a new concept, the Werhmacht's ability to use it effectively to conquer vast stretches of Europe wrote a new chapter in the evolution of high speed and high response 'maneuver warfare' when it comes to blending people, technology, and situations at the operational level, the strata that is most responsible for influencing an outcome of a war.

Go back even further, take a man (intelligence), a horse (mobility), and a bow and arrows (portability), and what would you have for an army? The philosophical question here is this: A dead combatant versus a severely wounded combatant, any different effect to the outcome of a battle (not a war)? Answer: No. The odds of being so disabled by a single arrow is good enough that a combatant's ability to continue the fight, regardless of how the movies may portray the heroes, is so diminished that he might as well be dead from a spear or a sword stab. Combine the man, the horse, and the bow and arrow, force all elements (combatants) into a cohesive and obedient organization and you just effectively hit the 'reset' button on warfare and that chapter remained the leading edge of warfare for centuries.

Since its founding, the PLA have contributed nothing so radical, nothing revolutionary or even evolutionary, to the history of warfare. Nothing in terms of doctrines and technology. And with Desert Storm, it was intellectually forced to abandon everything it knew about warfare.

The old saying goes: Appearances can be deceiving.

But the problem for the PLA here is that in order to deceive, one must have an already established intellectual foundation and capability to do the opposite of what one is portraying to observers, and the PLA have no such intellectual foundation and capability to deceive anyone of otherwise. It can only threaten and only those who are physically inferior can be cowed by such threats.

Do not confuse restraints by US with fear from US. The PLA can look as scary and threatening as it can, but we started the new chapter in the history book of warfare and we are writing into it, from individual soldiers equipment to tank maneuvers to 'stealth' to EW to aircraft carriers organization and many more, faster than the PLA can copy out. Some of the things that we wrote, many countries in the world will never achieve.


Please......We will revisit your own words insulting the entire military establishment...


The fallacy here is that immediate presumption that a good college and a good job goes hand-in-hand, as in being an inevitable pair or an inevitable consequence, and that those who joined the military are essentially -- idiots.

If I am an employer, this is what I see:

- A 20 yr old Chinese man, most likely the only child and therefore a spoiled brat to boot, is mooching off ma and pa for his college education. Most likely the only job he have is part time to pay for his cell phone bill and a few restaurant outings with friends where everyone is meticulous on how much his/her share of the tabs. Other than that, he have no real responsibilities. He probably does not own a car.

- A 20 yr old American man enlisted in the USAF for two years. Out of that two years, eight months spent on basic military and some technical training. The rest he spent as a crew chief on a 40 mil$ F-15E where he went from 'ACC' for assistant crew chief to finally have his named painted as 'CC'. His signature says 'Yea' or 'Nay' on whether the aircraft can fly for the day and essentially, can theoretically send a man to his death. He can remove a higher ranked enlisted person off what he believes to be 'his' jet if he does not have confidence in that person to work on 'his' jet. He most likely will have a car. Or he may have something more daring like a sports motorcycle. Or if he is frugal enough, even both. They will probably will be used, but at least he is independent.

Most likely the American air force guy will take longer to complete his college degree since his military duties will take higher priority, from daily tasks that will force him to miss a few classes to even overseas deployments. But by the time he finally got his college degree, say two years later than the Chinese spoiled brat, he will have six years of high stress, increasing responsibilities, and diverse workplace experience to accompany his college degree. And since the USAF paid for his college, he is also not burdened with education related debts.

From an employer's perspective, who do you think is going to be perceived as the more responsible and intelligent?

If I was a chick, say a Chinese gal seeking a better life with more than just one child in the family, the Yank does look pretty good.


Of course it does...If the fool persists on making baseless assertions and insulting those who do have experience and tried to teach him something.


Sure it does. Whenever a debate is engaged, a considerable intellectual and emotional investments are in play. I would not enter a debate with Stephen Hawkings (physics) or Thomas Sowell (economics) or even the local anonymous civil engineer maintaining the traffic lights. Would you be that foolish, even when there are so much electronic walls between them and you, hiding your face, leaving only the contents of your arguments to see? If you say no, then your electronic face is already valuable to you. You have imbued it with as much of your own character as possible, from personality to intellect to knowledge.

This is a military oriented forum. The discussions involved often have high technical contexts, not to say of things that are unique to military life. The length of your existence in this electronic world is entirely up to you but as long as you exists, whatever persona you created is just as valuable here as your real life is outside the Internet.

You tried to save your face by insulting an entire class of people -- the military -- when you found your arguments in shambles in the absence of relevant experience.


Bullsh1t.

Guerrilla warfare is nothing new, not even what Mao relabeled as "The People's War". Many of the occupied European countries did it back in WW II. But if we should be generous to Mao, the only 'new' thing he may have espoused, not necessarily technically fleshed out, is that unlike discrete independent guerrilla units of old, the Chinese version should be coordinative in their tactics and methodical as to create favorable consequences for other units. We have yet to see it in action and most likely never will.


Yes, you still are. If this is a race, we are 10 laps ahead with only one lap to go. But since this is not a race but the inexorable progress of life, particularly the military life, we are more like 30 yrs ahead of the PLA in terms of everything.

- China was never colonized, I can show sources, true Taiwan, HK and Macau, but those were islands. The Chinese government had absolute say in provincial governorship in all provinces throughout its history.

-China learned from the Americans and NATO as well as Russia and there are military exercises all the time and exchanges with a lot of different countries.

Chinese military has more and more university graduates, and people with masters degrees. Officers who have been trained both domestically and overseas. Men who have studied extensively of each and every conflict be it Western or Eastern.

So tell me, what does it matter you guys started earlier. You can catch up 20 years in a week, but you can't advance 2 weeks in a day.

If you must, China the continuous civilization is 5 thousand years old, way older than you guys, and don't give me the nomads crap, I know all about European history.

- Since you mentioned the Nazis, did you know German empire in WW1 had almost no tanks, while the allies were all about the tanks. Americans also had no tanks and were given their training after they arrived in France.

Nazis fought no opponent before the Polish campaign and yet they were effective.

- You keep mention Vietnam and Korea, but the fact was Vietnam, our latest war was fought with technology so out dated that they may as well have gone in with bow and arrow.

I don't know why Vietnam proved China is weak TODAY, when I clearly showed the difference.

-The US isn't god, the Spanish tercios were once invincible too and the Swedish mercenaries. Just because you guys invented some new things doesn't mean nothing to the past or the future, just means something now.

-And don't confuse Chinese restraint as fear, you guys just haven't done anything to upset China so much as to forget economic interests and go for war.

- As you said PLA's history is not long, with modern weaponry it's even less. It's only about 10 years that PLA has been achieving a effective force. It's only right now, or not even now can we say that we are advanced.

But that doesn't mean we won't in the future, and seeing as how there are no wars, how can you say that we don't have any plans. The Chinese military's modernization program clearly needs a goal and a set of doctrines to govern it. We don't just randomly develop weapons, it must fit a certain purpose.

-China isn't just history, we are the Roman empire that was rebuilt again and again. We have the man power, the education, the economy, and everything required. We are on a raw bases every bit as powerful if not more so than US. Except we are hungary to avenge our years of humiliation. So tell me, would YOU bet against China achieving success?

When over the past decades we have proven everyone wrong.

-Good college and good job don't go hand in hand, but it doesn't hurt. Also not my fault my parents have money to give me, maybe next life that can happen to you too. I also have no debts, never had it, be it house, car, or education.

From an employer's perspective, I am hired and well paid. With benefits and longer vacation time. Though the vacation time has more to do with the nature of my job than me.

- I would argue with anyone online, it's where I try out my arguments and stuff. Why does it matter what it makes me look, when I can just ignore it.

Real life it be different I'll give you that.

-military forum where you keep telling people Chinese military is pretty much illiterate, and somehow some Chinese members are a reflection on the highly educated men and women who serve in Chinese military.

This would be like me saying the Tea party is a reflection of the US military. The creationist believing idiots.

-Mao did his war methods pre-WW2 and his methods were different, Stalin defended Stalingrad, Hitler went for Moscow, America wanted key cities and ports. Mao also wanted them, but only in favorable circumstances.

-China has advanced beyond anyone's expectations, you won't dispute this would you. So why would you doubt China's ability to catch up and surpass the US. Don't be like Gordon Chang.

 

[Juice]

Desert storm, when it happened, the PLA generals wore this

All you can say is that they didn't know any better. However, the fact they were wrong would prove the key to massive modernization programs and military size cuts.

During the Napoleonic wars, the Prussians had no army corp structure and were vastly inferior to France, battle of Jena proved that. However a few decades later, the Prussians captured Napoleon the third.

Defeat is not always bad.

This is what we look like now

obviously America made advances too, but did you go from industry that can barely make bullets, to industry that made us the 5th biggest exporter and have every indication of moving to third.

To say that because Vietnam war and Desert storm proved China was inferior, is not a fair assessment of Chinese military.

Some people have goals as officers and others to pay their college bill, that's fine, but you got to admit, it doesn't pay very well. Most people who have other options usually don't go into it.

And to be fair the reason I said it was not to discredit you, but the fact you keep bring up people not being in the army as if it's something that would discredit them, which isn't true.

Save face, save what face, this is a forum, an internet forum, a place to debate, it matters not at all to me be it personal life or professional life.

when did I say Vietnam showed China can win? Vietnam showed that Chinese military at that point was worthless. a decade of pointless revolution has robbed China of it's strength, not that it had much to begin with.

And Mao's guerrilla warfare is new. His using farmers rather than workers, his tactics of villages surrounding cities, his finishing off enemy forces rather than capturing or holding cities is in direct contrast to western theories. Also why he was pushed aside during parts of his career, and almost died. Before you said he copied, he didn't even read Marxist theories until about 1935ish, so that should tell you his western education.

You only see what you want to see. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Desert storm did show US can defeat China, in 1990s quickly and effectively. However, time has changed whether you believe it or not. We may not be equals, but it's also not that far apart anymore.


@Juice

You said it all, US went from helicopters to stealth helicopters. We went from running on 2 feet to helicopters, and approaching stealth. So you tell me who made the bigger leap. You went from largest economy to largest economy, we went from worse than africa to world's second largest.

One minor detail, the tactic of surrounding cities rather than direct assault was a western invention. The Germans used it to great effect....when they ignored this advice (Stalingrad) They suffered. We did too....we should of hit Fallujah immediately instead of pulling back and going in after a siege. Bagdad should have taught us that immediate action saves lives.

You need to get over whatever obsessions you have about China and Chinese.



Well, in Vietnam the Americans had their own man in charge and were killing Vietcongs like flies and what happened in the end ? The Soviets had their own man in charge in Afghanistan and were killing Mujahideens like flies and what happened in the end ? The Taliban remains undefeated after 12 years of war and once you leave Afghanistan your man will be overthrown and the Taliban and their allies will take over again.

Now lets talk about Desert Storm. There are several factors that led to a amazing US victory and most of them comes down to the Iraqi's themselves rather then the Americans. First of all the US military at the time was pumped up by Ronald Reagan to fight the Soviets in the 1980's. That war of course never came and so that army was then unleashed against Iraq.

The Iraqi's just came out of a 8 year war against Iran that has been described as a repeat of WWI. That 8 year war (1980-1988) with Iran involved trench warfare, machine gun positions, no man lands, human wave attacks and the use of chemical weapons. And that's how the Iraqi's fought the Americans minus the chemical weapons. The Iraqi's had set up a layer defence on the southern border of Kuwait with mine fields, barbwire's, trenches, machine gun positions and artillery kill zones. There were 2 problems with this strategy. First he couldn't kept his frontline forces supplied this was already a fact even before the war started. There were units that where starving in their trenches and positions and defected to the otherside in Saudi Arabia even before a single bomb was dropped. And second he couldn't protect them from airstrikes and the USAF carpet bombed them with B-52's. So when the ground war started most of the Iraqi soldiers have already fled their position or came out of their trenches with their hands up, shell shocked and starving. The handful of units that bdid fought where no match to the coalition forces as they where poorly trained and used outdated and downgraded equipment that was 2 to 3 generations behind that of the coalition forces. This poor military planning comes from the fact that Saddam Hussein who has no military background of any kind was insisting to take total charge of the war effort just like at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. His meddling in military matters was perhabs the single biggest issue that was crippeling the Iraqi's war effort. And and top of that after the Iran Iraq war ended he had many of the competent officers and commanders removed or executed out of fear that their popularity amongst the troops and the population may become a threat to his rule. And in early 1989 there was talk about a possible coup by members of the air force and he had many of its commanders and officers arrested or executed. The Iraqi air force in the 2 years leading up to the Gulf War has barely flown and when they do they only fly in 2 by 2 formation never in large formations and they weren't allowed to have any contacts with the air defense units on the ground. In Iraq the air defense units and the air force were 2 seperate organizations. The Iraqi air force got beaten up badly in the first few nights and that's not a surprising fact if you know how poorly trained they are and that most of their planes where Soviet downgraded export only monkey models. So instead of fighting the coalition they fled to Iran. The highly integrated air defense system of the Iraqi's where created by French and Swedish companies. As they where a part of the coalition they gave details of the weakenesses of their systems that enable the coalition to easily defeat it.

You keep going on about the 1991 Gulf War but do not talk about America's military record since then which is far less impressive. In Yugoslavia 1999 after 78 days of bombing the US and its NATO allies couldn't suppress the Yugoslav air defense system despite the Yugoslav's lack of modern equipment and had virtually no air force to speak of. And after 78 day of bombing in the Kosovo area itself the USAF only managed to destroy 12 tanks. The war in Afghanistan since 2001 has now dragged on for 12 years and still the US is unable to defeat the Taliban. In Iraq after the 2003 invasion the US couldn't pacify that country despite fighting a 8 year war for about a trillion dollars. In 2011 it took the US and its allies 6 months to defeat the decrepit forces of Moammar Khaddafi in Libya.

The Chinese and Russian militaries and their commentators maybe wrong about the 1991 Gulf War but they were spot on when they said that America will end up in a quagmire in their wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While the US military and its political leaders together with the media and a majority of its people where suffering from uncontrolled primature ejeculation from their "victories".

Yes, in 1991 the US did amazingly well and the Iraqi's have made terrible mistakes but the world watched and has learned from both. So future battles won't be won so easily by the Americans.

And the price from the 1991 Gulf War is pretty high for the Americans too as about 300000 Gulf War veterans suffers from the Gulf War Syndrome that's probably caused either by depleted uranium or by exposure from low levels of biological agents. But eitherway those people cannot be curred and are still suffering today.

As for a war against China by the US. That's very unlikely because thats not the sort of war that the US fights. The Americans only fight against nations that don't have a real air force, navy, don't have any space capabilities and nevermind nuclear weapons. If the US doesn't even dare to fight Iran and North Korea head on what makes you think that the US will go to war against China ?

Its true that at this point the US has the best equipped and trained military on the planet but can the US afford to keep this military machine going for long as its ponzi scheme economy collapses at home ? I think not.

Taliban undefeated? Send me photos of their victory parade in Kabul when you can.

 

[Juice]

Gambit not a retired pilot or any General? he just a janitor for US jetliner, he rubbed and clean the Jet cabin too much all day long. Sometime sneak to the pilot room for some nap and now he become the Pilot amazing right.

Scrubbing an airline seat would give Gambit twice the experience that %90 of anyone else in this forum has.

 

[gambit]

You need to get over whatever obsessions you have about China and Chinese.

No 'obsession'. Just debunking...

Well, in Vietnam the Americans had their own man in charge and were killing Vietcongs like flies and what happened in the end ? The Soviets had their own man in charge in Afghanistan and were killing Mujahideens like flies and what happened in the end ? The Taliban remains undefeated after 12 years of war and once you leave Afghanistan your man will be overthrown and the Taliban and their allies will take over again.

In both times, the native was MILITARILY defeated.

I will dumb this down as much as possible for that 'high Chinese IQ' to digest...

The Politician say: Defeat this country.

The General then say: We will defeat this country by taking over this city, that valley, those rivers, blockade all major sea ports, and debilitate all major air bases and airports.

Principle: Political goal determine military objectives.

The Politician set the political goal. The General outlined the military objectives. If the General failed to achieve his military objectives, there could be no political success at the negotiation table. The Politician want to be able to ask to his opposition: 'My General have taken ten cities, controls all water access points, and achieve 75% air superiority. Will you surrender?' Even Hitler wanted a political solution despite the reality back then that he could have wipe out any military resistance in Europe. It is far better to get the opposition to voluntarily cease resistance than to risk more of one's own resources, even though the General WOULD have taken the other 10 cities and achieve 100% air superiority.

Did the Politician say: Defeat this country and install our own guy? No, he did not.

But what if he did? Now the General must not only militarily defeat that country, he must work to create a necessary conditions for a replacement government more amenable to what his own country is used to. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did it for their respective conquests. For Afghanistan, both the Soviets and the US had similar political goals and inevitably similar military objectives and operations and of course the outcomes would have similarities.

It is far easier for simple minds to rhetorically poke US in the eye with Viet Nam and Afghanistan for one's own shallow enjoyment than to look at history in an objective manner.

Now lets talk about Desert Storm. There are several factors that led to a amazing US victory and most of them comes down to the Iraqi's themselves rather then the Americans.

This is absolutely absurd. You have basically insulted military history and all militaries in toto. What you are saying is that it is wrong to take advantage of an enemy's incompetence, flaws, and weaknesses when the reality is that warfare is about seeking flaws and weaknesses and exploits them to the fullest. That is exactly what Sun Tzu and von Clauswitz said. But hey...We on PDF have a Chinese civilian with no military experience says it is wrong to do so.

Saddam Hussein may have been incomptent, but no matter how incomptent the Iraqi military was, it was still formidable enough to give any military in the region pause in engaging Iraq. The PLA certainly could not have handled the Iraqi militlary. The first thing we hit was radar stations, not Saddam Hussein. Then we attacked all the major points of the Iraqi military infrastructure ALL AT ONCE and we did it with timing and ferocity that was unprecedented in the history of warfare. This is the point you missed.

You keep going on about the 1991 Gulf War but do not talk about America's military record since then which is far less impressive. In Yugoslavia 1999 after 78 days of bombing the US and its NATO allies couldn't suppress the Yugoslav air defense system despite the Yugoslav's lack of modern equipment and had virtually no air force to speak of.

And after 78 day of bombing in the Kosovo area itself the USAF only managed to destroy 12 tanks.

Please...If the US was unrestrained in Yugoslavia as we were in Desert Storm, there would be no Serbian victory dance over a single F-117 shot down. We would have overrun the entire country with tanks and troops and they would have fought with the same intensity as they did in Iraq. Instead we have this...

Washingtonpost.com: Kosovo Land Threat May Have Won War

...Milosevic signed an agreement allowing the invasion of 50,000 NATO soldiers – but as peacekeepers, not warriors.

Peacekeepers are static and reactive forces, not dynamic and proactive. No valid comparisons possible between Iraq and Yugoslavia. But if it make you feel good about yourself as a 'military analyst', have a blast...

The war in Afghanistan since 2001 has now dragged on for 12 years and still the US is unable to defeat the Taliban. In Iraq after the 2003 invasion the US couldn't pacify that country despite fighting a 8 year war for about a trillion dollars. In 2011 it took the US and its allies 6 months to defeat the decrepit forces of Moammar Khaddafi in Libya.

See previous response about Yugoslavia and if you can spot the parallel.

Yes, in 1991 the US did amazingly well and the Iraqi's have made terrible mistakes but the world watched and has learned from both. So future battles won't be won so easily by the Americans.

That is a hope, not any valid 'analysis'.

And the price from the 1991 Gulf War is pretty high for the Americans too as about 300000 Gulf War veterans suffers from the Gulf War Syndrome that's probably caused either by depleted uranium or by exposure from low levels of biological agents. But eitherway those people cannot be curred and are still suffering today.

Not interested in this tangent. Useless in this debate. Take it to anti-US rally.

As for a war against China by the US. That's very unlikely because thats not the sort of war that the US fights. The Americans only fight against nations that don't have a real air force, navy, don't have any space capabilities and nevermind nuclear weapons. If the US doesn't even dare to fight Iran and North Korea head on what makes you think that the US will go to war against China ?

This is one of the dumbest criticism to level against US. You make it as if somehow this is a unique US trait and the rest of the world's militaries are soooooo honorable that they would fight only against military peers. Never mind history that says otherwise.

Why not level it against the Soviets regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Soviets backed down, leaving Cuba in the lurch and Castro looked the clown. Hey...We have a real air force, navy, and army back then. Why not China take US now while we still have a real air force, navy, and army?

Its true that at this point the US has the best equipped and trained military on the planet but can the US afford to keep this military machine going for long as its ponzi scheme economy collapses at home ? I think not.

And China's economy is not a Ponzi scheme? Here is a liberal economist's opinion on China's economy...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/chinas-ponzi-bicycle-is-running-into-a-brick-wall/?_r=0

...China’s low-consumption high-investment economy was a kind of Ponzi scheme. Chinese businesses were investing furiously, not to build capacity to serve consumers, who weren’t buying much, but to serve buyers of investment goods — in effect, investing to take advantage of future investment, adding even more capacity. Would there ever be final buyers for what all this capacity could produce? Unclear. So, a kind of Ponzi scheme.

How about another, although not a liberal...

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Indebted Dragon: The Ponzi Scheme Driving China's Construction Economy

In Indebted Dragon, Professor Lynette Ong from the University of Toronto discusses how the Chinese economy relies on land as collateral to borrow money while paying the interest on the loans by selling and leasing the land.

Ong notes this makes China susceptible to two problems: a real estate bubble and political instability stemming from displaced farmers whose land has been taken from them.

The subtitle to Ong's article is "The Risky Strategy Behind China's Construction Economy".

I suggest "Ponzi Scheme" is a more apt description than "Risky Strategy".

Read on, if you dare.

 

[Juice]

You need to get over whatever obsessions you have about China and Chinese.



Well, in Vietnam the Americans had their own man in charge and were killing Vietcongs like flies and what happened in the end ? The Soviets had their own man in charge in Afghanistan and were killing Mujahideens like flies and what happened in the end ? The Taliban remains undefeated after 12 years of war and once you leave Afghanistan your man will be overthrown and the Taliban and their allies will take over again.

Now lets talk about Desert Storm. There are several factors that led to a amazing US victory and most of them comes down to the Iraqi's themselves rather then the Americans. First of all the US military at the time was pumped up by Ronald Reagan to fight the Soviets in the 1980's. That war of course never came and so that army was then unleashed against Iraq.

The Iraqi's just came out of a 8 year war against Iran that has been described as a repeat of WWI. That 8 year war (1980-1988) with Iran involved trench warfare, machine gun positions, no man lands, human wave attacks and the use of chemical weapons. And that's how the Iraqi's fought the Americans minus the chemical weapons. The Iraqi's had set up a layer defence on the southern border of Kuwait with mine fields, barbwire's, trenches, machine gun positions and artillery kill zones. There were 2 problems with this strategy. First he couldn't kept his frontline forces supplied this was already a fact even before the war started. There were units that where starving in their trenches and positions and defected to the otherside in Saudi Arabia even before a single bomb was dropped. And second he couldn't protect them from airstrikes and the USAF carpet bombed them with B-52's. So when the ground war started most of the Iraqi soldiers have already fled their position or came out of their trenches with their hands up, shell shocked and starving. The handful of units that bdid fought where no match to the coalition forces as they where poorly trained and used outdated and downgraded equipment that was 2 to 3 generations behind that of the coalition forces. This poor military planning comes from the fact that Saddam Hussein who has no military background of any kind was insisting to take total charge of the war effort just like at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. His meddling in military matters was perhabs the single biggest issue that was crippeling the Iraqi's war effort. And and top of that after the Iran Iraq war ended he had many of the competent officers and commanders removed or executed out of fear that their popularity amongst the troops and the population may become a threat to his rule. And in early 1989 there was talk about a possible coup by members of the air force and he had many of its commanders and officers arrested or executed. The Iraqi air force in the 2 years leading up to the Gulf War has barely flown and when they do they only fly in 2 by 2 formation never in large formations and they weren't allowed to have any contacts with the air defense units on the ground. In Iraq the air defense units and the air force were 2 seperate organizations. The Iraqi air force got beaten up badly in the first few nights and that's not a surprising fact if you know how poorly trained they are and that most of their planes where Soviet downgraded export only monkey models. So instead of fighting the coalition they fled to Iran. The highly integrated air defense system of the Iraqi's where created by French and Swedish companies. As they where a part of the coalition they gave details of the weakenesses of their systems that enable the coalition to easily defeat it.

You keep going on about the 1991 Gulf War but do not talk about America's military record since then which is far less impressive. In Yugoslavia 1999 after 78 days of bombing the US and its NATO allies couldn't suppress the Yugoslav air defense system despite the Yugoslav's lack of modern equipment and had virtually no air force to speak of. And after 78 day of bombing in the Kosovo area itself the USAF only managed to destroy 12 tanks. The war in Afghanistan since 2001 has now dragged on for 12 years and still the US is unable to defeat the Taliban. In Iraq after the 2003 invasion the US couldn't pacify that country despite fighting a 8 year war for about a trillion dollars. In 2011 it took the US and its allies 6 months to defeat the decrepit forces of Moammar Khaddafi in Libya.

The Chinese and Russian militaries and their commentators maybe wrong about the 1991 Gulf War but they were spot on when they said that America will end up in a quagmire in their wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While the US military and its political leaders together with the media and a majority of its people where suffering from uncontrolled primature ejeculation from their "victories".

Yes, in 1991 the US did amazingly well and the Iraqi's have made terrible mistakes but the world watched and has learned from both. So future battles won't be won so easily by the Americans.

And the price from the 1991 Gulf War is pretty high for the Americans too as about 300000 Gulf War veterans suffers from the Gulf War Syndrome that's probably caused either by depleted uranium or by exposure from low levels of biological agents. But eitherway those people cannot be curred and are still suffering today.

As for a war against China by the US. That's very unlikely because thats not the sort of war that the US fights. The Americans only fight against nations that don't have a real air force, navy, don't have any space capabilities and nevermind nuclear weapons. If the US doesn't even dare to fight Iran and North Korea head on what makes you think that the US will go to war against China ?

Its true that at this point the US has the best equipped and trained military on the planet but can the US afford to keep this military machine going for long as its ponzi scheme economy collapses at home ? I think not.

I will talk of Kosovo....bring up whatever you want.....but we will talk when I see a photo of you and the victorious Serbian generals having a parade down the streets of Pristina

 

[gambit]

A radar is a radar. It is of no threat unless you have something to shoot down the enemy with. If Syria does not have SAMs and fighter aircraft in the air, then what can the radar do? It can only show where the enemy aircraft is and that's it.

I believe the SAM sites would be targeted by cruise missiles, so even if the missile is shot down, no loss of life occurs. Cruise missiles are way cheaper and expendable.

France would obviously be willing to do some SEAD and A2G missions to show off their Rafale.

You can bet your next year's salary, and you would win, that we already have most, if not all, of the necessary SIGINT for the Syrian defenses.

 

[BigDaddyWatch]

No 'obsession'. Just debunking...


In both times, the native was MILITARILY defeated.

I will dumb this down as much as possible for that 'high Chinese IQ' to digest...

The Politician say: Defeat this country.

The General then say: We will defeat this country by taking over this city, that valley, those rivers, blockade all major sea ports, and debilitate all major air bases and airports.

Principle: Political goal determine military objectives.

The Politician set the political goal. The General outlined the military objectives. If the General failed to achieve his military objectives, there could be no political success at the negotiation table. The Politician want to be able to ask to his opposition: 'My General have taken ten cities, controls all water access points, and achieve 75% air superiority. Will you surrender?' Even Hitler wanted a political solution despite the reality back then that he could have wipe out any military resistance in Europe. It is far better to get the opposition to voluntarily cease resistance than to risk more of one's own resources, even though the General WOULD have taken the other 10 cities and achieve 100% air superiority.

Did the Politician say: Defeat this country and install our own guy? No, he did not.

But what if he did? Now the General must not only militarily defeat that country, he must work to create a necessary conditions for a replacement government more amenable to what his own country is used to. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did it for their respective conquests. For Afghanistan, both the Soviets and the US had similar political goals and inevitably similar military objectives and operations and of course the outcomes would have similarities.

It is far easier for simple minds to rhetorically poke US in the eye with Viet Nam and Afghanistan for one's own shallow enjoyment than to look at history in an objective manner.


This is absolutely absurd. You have basically insulted military history and all militaries in toto. What you are saying is that it is wrong to take advantage of an enemy's incompetence, flaws, and weaknesses when the reality is that warfare is about seeking flaws and weaknesses and exploits them to the fullest. That is exactly what Sun Tzu and von Clauswitz said. But hey...We on PDF have a Chinese civilian with no military experience says it is wrong to do so.

Saddam Hussein may have been incomptent, but no matter how incomptent the Iraqi military was, it was still formidable enough to give any military in the region pause in engaging Iraq. The PLA certainly could not have handled the Iraqi militlary. The first thing we hit was radar stations, not Saddam Hussein. Then we attacked all the major points of the Iraqi military infrastructure ALL AT ONCE and we did it with timing and ferocity that was unprecedented in the history of warfare. This is the point you missed.


Please...If the US was unrestrained in Yugoslavia as we were in Desert Storm, there would be no Serbian victory dance over a single F-117 shot down. We would have overrun the entire country with tanks and troops and they would have fought with the same intensity as they did in Iraq. Instead we have this...

Washingtonpost.com: Kosovo Land Threat May Have Won War

Peacekeepers are static and reactive forces, not dynamic and proactive. No valid comparisons possible between Iraq and Yugoslavia. But if it make you feel good about yourself as a 'military analyst', have a blast...


See previous response about Yugoslavia and if you can spot the parallel.


That is a hope, not any valid 'analysis'.


Not interested in this tangent. Useless in this debate. Take it to anti-US rally.


This is one of the dumbest criticism to level against US. You make it as if somehow this is a unique US trait and the rest of the world's militaries are soooooo honorable that they would fight only against military peers. Never mind history that says otherwise.

Why not level it against the Soviets regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Soviets backed down, leaving Cuba in the lurch and Castro looked the clown. Hey...We have a real air force, navy, and army back then. Why not China take US now while we still have a real air force, navy, and army?


And China's economy is not a Ponzi scheme? Here is a liberal economist's opinion on China's economy...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/chinas-ponzi-bicycle-is-running-into-a-brick-wall/?_r=0


How about another, although not a liberal...

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Indebted Dragon: The Ponzi Scheme Driving China's Construction Economy

Read on, if you dare.

What's the point in "winning" war after war if you can't achieve your political or strategic objectives ? What's the point fighting a war if in the end you can't get what you want politically or strategically ? The Americans for the past 2 decades since Desert Storm have been winning battle's but not wars since the US can't achieve what it want politically or strategically.

Believe me if i tell you that China's economic problems are nothing compared to those of the US. Lets take two example the shadow banking system of China that's suppose to be such a threat to the Chinese economy is only 40% to 60% of GDP. But the shadow banking system of the US is 154% of GDP in 2011. The empty cities in China that was another threat to the Chinese economy. The estimate is there are about 65 million empty apartments in China. But in the uS there are about 20 million empty homes and if you know that the population of the US is 4,3 x smaller then China then you will come to equivalent of 86 million empty homes. That's even more than in China. And since these day 75% of the new jobs created in America are part time jobs in food processing and other low paying job people making 7 to 11 dollars an hour working for 15 to 20 hours a week i doubt those homes will be sold off anytime soon. And in the mean time people are getting into debt building new houses.

I will talk of Kosovo....bring up whatever you want.....but we will talk when I see a photo of you and the victorious Serbian generals having a parade down the streets of Pristina

Show me the picture of the American victory parade in either in Pristina or Washington DC.

 

[Juice]

What's the point in "winning" war after war if you can't achieve your political or strategic objectives ? What's the point fighting a war if in the end you can't get what you want politically or strategically ? The Americans for the past 2 decades since Desert Storm have been winning battle's but not wars since the US can't achieve what it want politically or strategically.

Believe me if i tell you that China's economic problems are nothing compared to those of the US. Lets take two example the shadow banking system of China that's suppose to be such a threat to the Chinese economy is only 40% to 60% of GDP. But the shadow banking system of the US is 154% of GDP in 2011. The empty cities in China that was another threat to the Chinese economy. The estimate is there are about 65 million empty apartments in China. But in the uS there are about 20 million empty homes and if you know that the population of the US is 4,3 x smaller then China then you will come to equivalent of 86 million empty homes. That's even more than in China. And since these day 75% of the new jobs created in America are part time jobs in food processing and other low paying job people making 7 to 11 dollars an hour working for 15 to 20 hours a week i doubt those homes will be sold off anytime soon. And in the mean time people are getting into debt building new houses.



Show me the picture of the American victory parade in either in Pristina or Washington DC.

If the US is really bad-off you Chinese will be the first to know....the first thing we will stop buying is Chinese Chock, and you will all be eating each other in ditches as you have for most of your history. PS....will soon post pics of Americans in Pristina. As far as how much an American is paid, check your facts.....many millions of Chinese would think Micky Dee's a dream job.

 

[gambit]

What's the point in "winning" war after war if you can't achieve your political or strategic objectives ? What's the point fighting a war if in the end you can't get what you want politically or strategically ? The Americans for the past 2 decades since Desert Storm have been winning battle's but not wars since the US can't achieve what it want politically or strategically.

This is still simplistic.

There is no guarantee that I will get exactly what I want. If only uncertainty is deterrent enough, there would be peace on Earth since the beginning of civilization. We war not only because of irreconcilable differences but often also with the intent of making sure the other side cannot bring to the table his differences to conflict with ours.

You completely missed the point about the Politician and the General illustration.

Principle: Political goal determine the Military objectives.

Therefore, what define a war and what define success are not absolutes. It changes according to political whims. The history to back this 'Therefore' up is all too apparent but it is really amazing that you cannot see it.

In Viet Nam, the US had political dithering and that caused the eventual social exhaustion of the war.

In Iraq with Desert Storm, there was no such political dithering. The politicians stayed out of the way. The political goal was to eject Iraq out of Kuwait. It was not regime change, although we could have done it since our tanks were only a couple hundred klicks away from Baghdad.

After Desert Storm, we have to examine the political goal of each conflict, see if there were alternatives, and if possible, if we can come up with the most probable outcome for those alternatives. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight but back when the decision to go to war was made, the decision makers have no such luxury. So the point for them was that we should go to war based upon A, B, and/or C reasons and hope that we will have this or that outcome.

How do you know that we 'cannot'? In convenient hindsight, of course.

Believe me if i tell you that China's economic problems are nothing compared to those of the US. Lets take two example the shadow banking system of China that's suppose to be such a threat to the Chinese economy is only 40% to 60% of GDP. But the shadow banking system of the US is 154% of GDP in 2011. The empty cities in China that was another threat to the Chinese economy. The estimate is there are about 65 million empty apartments in China. But in the uS there are about 20 million empty homes and if you know that the population of the US is 4,3 x smaller then China then you will come to equivalent of 86 million empty homes. That's even more than in China. And since these day 75% of the new jobs created in America are part time jobs in food processing and other low paying job people making 7 to 11 dollars an hour working for 15 to 20 hours a week i doubt those homes will be sold off anytime soon. And in the mean time people are getting into debt building new houses.

Why should I believe you, or whoever you lifted your economic argument from, when you just projected tangible assets like houses into virtual reality where you could bend the laws as you see fit?

Yeah...My house have just been turned into four apartments from China.

 

[Genesis]

One minor detail, the tactic of surrounding cities rather than direct assault was a western invention. The Germans used it to great effect....when they ignored this advice (Stalingrad) They suffered. We did too....we should of hit Fallujah immediately instead of pulling back and going in after a siege. Bagdad should have taught us that immediate action saves lives.

Taliban undefeated? Send me photos of their victory parade in Kabul when you can.

surrounding cities is not an invention. People all over the world has been doing it. You know China fought thousands of years of warfare before 1999. We had the art of war and all kinds of different strategy books.

You know the fact that you said that means that you think Chinese are like Africans, we were not wearing paint when we met. All we didn't do is the industrial revolution.

There are many reasons for why certain things didn't happen, I would create another thread for that, too long to list here.

Mao's village surround the cities doesn't actually mean surround the cities. He means taking over the villages, and not set the cities as goals. This is done for his people's war.

 

[asad71]

It would be routine if the claims made in the lead were even partially true. After all China has emerged a major arms manufacturer and exporter.

 

[feilong]

If the US is really bad-off you Chinese will be the first to know....the first thing we will stop buying is Chinese Chock, and you will all be eating each other in ditches as you have for most of your history. PS....will soon post pics of Americans in Pristina. As far as how much an American is paid, check your facts.....many millions of Chinese would think Micky Dee's a dream job.

another juicy joke of the day.

Scrubbing an airline seat would give Gambit twice the experience that %90 of anyone else in this forum has.

That is why we see he is a world dumb dumb bell of the forum.

 

[viper46]

Gambit not a retired pilot or any General? he just a janitor for US jetliner, he rubbed and clean the Jet cabin too much all day long. Sometime sneak to the pilot room for some nap and now he become the Pilot amazing right.

 

[sincity]

US in over 17 trillions dollar deficit, US population need to stop eating for a whole yrs in other to pay off the debt. Each year US government add more to the deficit on interest alone.

 

[by78]

Chinese weaponry had that chance -- Desert Storm. Was very...aaaahhhh...'effective'.

The PLA generals and admirals also have a chance to show off their warfighting acumen by predicting that even though the US and allies would win, the casualties for the alliance would be in the tens of thousands, several ships lost because of the Silkworm, and several squadrons' worth of fighters lost due to Soviet/Chinese supplied air defenses.

Everything came true...

The Chinese weren't too far off from our own projections at the time. It came as a pleasant surprise to us that Iraq was a complete cakewalk. An eye opener for the Chinese for sure.

Of course, one cannot talk about Desert Storm without talking about the second Iraq War.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and our generals and admirals (Shinseki excepted) foresaw another cakewalk. The Chinese predicated that we'd have problems holding the country together once Saddam is booted. They also predicated that much of the war would be paid for by the People's Bank of China.

Guess who was right?