You don't understand, a real nation is our specialty. We rock at all out war, it's this limited engagement shit that we suck at.
Quite. The involvement of foreign military power in the US's recent wars was no more than a blend of coalition-building (for international buy-in) and cost saving. The US is arguably the only power in the world with truly global constrained force projection capabilities. The closest thing there is to a threat to that would be "aircraft-carrier-killer" missiles deployed en-masse.
More to the point, fully industrialized nations don't engage in equal-footing external warfare anymore. In the event of resource wars or other events bringing such to pass again, the US is likely able to mobilize unsurpassable force afield with surprising rapidity. Nuclear war isn't a likely scenario, as it ensures complete losses for whatever non-US side initiates it. Global conventional war presents unique advantages to the United States regardless of the disposition of her allies. Constrained conventional war leaves the US with near total force projection supremacy in most cases. In the event of a more balanced constrained conventional war (Taiwan/China/US, say), the US has the upper hand in terms of discretion to engage. I.e., the US can project into the theatre, but the enemy can't project back into the US. The worst-case scenario for the US ends up being a backing off after a discrete catastrophic loss (a single aircraft carrier, for example), followed by economic warfare.
Wars between industrialized Western nations are highly unlikely.
Wars between industrialized Western nations are highly unlikely.
We don't go to war for the same reasons that we have historically. We're no longer in a land or resource grab situation. Nations aren't trying to expand or resist invaders. Yes their are exceptions, but the boarders of industrialized nations may as well be set in stone. Globalization has taken us away from physical types of conflict and moved us towards a "Board Meeting Battlefield."
Apparently, that "pen" everyone keeps talking about is a +5 Adamantite Vorpral Keen Shocking Burst. While the "sword" has NERF stamped on the side.
You can't even take a backwards Theocracy or a state of penniless communists. How the hell are you going to stand up to a real nation.
You don't understand, a real nation is our specialty. We rock at all out war, it's this limited engagement shit that we suck at.
Heh. Read "Tomorrow when the war began", then consider it's set in the nineties, that we've taken quite a few steps up since then tech wise and forces wise, and times it by ten. Australia is really, really not an easy country to invade.
As Rommel said, and not for nothing, "If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it." and as said by one Vietcong leader - "Worse than the Americans were the Australians. The Americans style was to hit us, then call for planes and artillery. Our response was to break contact and disappear if we could. The Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerrilla fighters, better at ambushes. They liked to stay with us instead of calling in the planes. We were more afraid of their style."
Though, as rym said, it's a pretty remote possibility, extremely unlikely. Economic war is the order of the day between modern nations nowadays, rather than actual knock-down, drag-out war. But we're still very proud of our Warrin'.
Amusing side note - In World war two, there was a manner of firing the Squad Support machine guns that were attached to Armoured regiments, which was for a team of three, carrying the gun and ammo, to run a few hundred feet ahead of the armour, drop down, set up the Bren, fire for a bit, pack up the gun once the armour has passed, then run ahead of the armour again in a bounding overwatch sort of fashion. The Australian Machine-gun teams got the shits with this, and decided instead to simply have one man feeding the Gunner ammunition, and the gunner walking with the assembled gun, using the left leg of the bipod as an extra grip and a weight tied to the barrel to help compensate for muzzle climb, and strolled along next to the tanks firing from the hip. Must've startled the fuck out of the Germans.
Heh. Read "Tomorrow when the war began", then consider it's set in the nineties, that we've taken quite a few steps up since then tech wise and forces wise, and times it by ten. Australia is really, really not an easy country to invade.
I don't think you're quite fathoming our utter and complete air superiority.
Heh. Read "Tomorrow when the war began", then consider it's set in the nineties, that we've taken quite a few steps up since then tech wise and forces wise, and times it by ten. Australia is really, really not an easy country to invade.
I don't think you're quite fathoming our utter and complete air superiority.
I would argue that the majority of our troubles in that conflict stem from poor strategic decision-making, as opposed to any tactical or operational failures.
Heh. Read "Tomorrow when the war began", then consider it's set in the nineties, that we've taken quite a few steps up since then tech wise and forces wise, and times it by ten. Australia is really, really not an easy country to invade.
I don't think you're quite fathoming our utter and complete air superiority.
Which is helping you in Afghanistan so much.
Actually our UAVs are invaluable to that war effort.
Actually our UAVs are invaluable to that war effort.
The Air Force is investing heavily in that technology. Operationally, they allow unprecedented area denial capabilities, freeing ground troops for more discretion-intensive peacekeeping and manned aircraft for more active uses.
Heh. Read "Tomorrow when the war began", then consider it's set in the nineties, that we've taken quite a few steps up since then tech wise and forces wise, and times it by ten. Australia is really, really not an easy country to invade.
I don't think you're quite fathoming our utter and complete air superiority.
Which is helping you in Afghanistan so much.
This is mainly an issue of ROE rather than one of air power superiority.
I don't think you're quite fathoming our utter and complete air superiority.
Pft. The Jindalee radar network has the capability to scan as far away as the Korean Peninsula, and can pick up and profile a stealth fighter or bomber by the disturbances it makes in the air. We're currently pretty close on research that will greatly increase the range of the network, and it's sensitivity. Frankly, I don't think they'll be satisfied till they can track a mosquito fart in Finland, but as it is, you're hardly sneaking in, nor coming in without a fight, boyo. We know you're coming before you complete take off, and the more air resources you put within range of our shores, the more air resources you're making vulnerable to counter-attack.
Land Attack is also not viable, and a naval assault would be incredibly hard, considering. New Zealand's got our back, and we're great old mates with Canada, having fought alongside them quite closely in a number of Wars. And this ain't Russia. You don't get to walk home, you fail, and you're swimming your ass back.
Further, don't forget the Australian and New Zealand Populace. You're fighting a war in two styles, against at least three nation's armies(one of which is in close proximity to your own home) and two populaces which are quite comfortable with the idea of guerrilla warfare - Particularly in Australia, where part of the deal in world war II was that we thought Japan was going to invade, and we were ballyed up to fuck. Even now days, you're hard pressed to find a farmer without a few shotguns and rifles, plenty of ammo, a half a crate of gellignite, and god knows what else in the back shed, along with an intimate knowledge of the area you're going to have to fight them in, and a far greater grasp of bushcraft than you do.
I'm not saying you'd lose, But be damned if it wouldn't be a Pyrrhic victory.
Land Attack is also not viable, and a naval assault would be incredibly hard, considering. New Zealand's got our back, and we're great old mates with Canada. And this ain't Russia. You don't get to walk home, you fail, and you're swimming your ass back.
You're assuming there would be an invasion. If there were war between the US and the Australian continent, the US itself would be in zero danger. Trade embargoes and/or cruise missile bombardment would win the day.
Land Attack is also not viable, and a naval assault would be incredibly hard, considering. New Zealand's got our back, and we're great old mates with Canada. And this ain't Russia. You don't get to walk home, you fail, and you're swimming your ass back.
You're assuming there would be an invasion. If there were war between the US and the Australian continent, the US itself would be in zero danger. Trade embargoes and/or cruise missile bombardment would win the day.
This is true. Also, brag about defense all you want, but really there is nobody out there who has any offense to speak of besides the US. If Australia wants to invade the US, it doesn't even matter what defenses we have. You don't even have anything to send over here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Australian_Navy.
You're assuming there would be an invasion. If there were war between the US and the Australian continent, the US itself would be in zero danger. Trade embargoes and/or cruise missile bombardment would win the day.
I've edited before I saw this, however, You're wrong. You're forgetting one important thing - The Commonwealth of Nations. An act of war on one of us, is an act of war on all of us, and one of our good friends in the commonwealth is Canada, who happen to be your next door neighbour.
Further, We're a force in the naval department, and have formidable anti-air and anti-missile defences. You want the west coast? Well, Good luck to you, it's a really long walk to get to the east coast, and once you start approaching the east coast from the west, it's suicidally bad terrain for fighting a war in. You want to try coming in from the coast? Welcome to a massive assortment of small islands, rocky shoals, strange currents, dangerous reefs, and constant hit-and-run harassment from our naval and air forces. Air Assault is your best bet, but we know you're coming, and we've got rather decent defences against what you're going to throw, so even though it's your best bet, you're going to get your teeth kicked in just for the sake of kicking the other guy in the shins.
As for your Trade Embargos, That's going to hurt the USA a hell of a lot - We're major resource exporters, and you just happen to be one of our biggest customers. Further, for it to really hurt us, you'd also have to threaten to close yourselves off from most of the world - China, the ASEAN, Chile, New Zealand, and the rest of the commonwealth. You're also Risking Japan, who we have a very strong connection with. Can America really do without our wheat and wool, minerals such as iron-ore and gold, and energy in the forms of liquified natural gas and coal, as well as the various exports of the other nations listed? Not without some heavy economic bleeding, one suspects, and considering that you've already got a weakened economy, such bleeding could possibly result in a USSR style economic Exsanguination. (Admittedly, I'm not an expert on economics, and might be off base here on some points)
Lastly - You're not in range for cruise missiles by a few hundred miles or so. However, you are quite handily in range of our allies, some of whom are armed with much the same.
This is true. Also, brag about defense all you want, but really there is nobody out there who has any offense to speak of besides the US. If Australia wants to invade the US, it doesn't even matter what defenses we have. You don't even have anything to send over here.
You're stupidly assuming that we'd bother to come over while you still had these defences in place, or any carriers left. And further forgetting that you'd have a good half of the world standing against you, including Canada.
I mean, seriously, Why would we come get you? We can watch you burn in the flames of your own arrogance and stupidity in declaring war and trade embargos in the first place, without even pulling a trigger.
Aircraft carriers don't mean shit, unless you can get them somewhere where they can be effective, and that includes being able to afford to keep your supply lines going to them, the support ships to keep them safe, the Maintenance support to keep them in good repair so far from home, and the money and fuel to keep their pilots in the air and effective, and you have to be able to run submarines as a defence, since it only takes one of our subs to sink an unguarded air-craft carrier.
How many flotillas do you think you can afford to field in that situation, before you start really getting in the shit? How much do you think the US is willing to lose before it gives up, or before it starts to crash and burn like the USSR?
And Canada as an ally? Seriously? Canada and it's population of 34 million? And vast acres of cold?
And a competent fighting force within spitting distance of your border, a number of major cities and economic hubs, and your capital? Sure, They don't have the arrogance, nor are they given to thinking that they can win just by being America who are like, really good at wars and stuff, but it'd be foolish to disregard them.
As Rym was saying, several countries may have defense, but our force projection abilities are unmatched by anyone
As is, in this scenario, your capability for a Pyrrhic victory at best. Your force projection is unmatched by any single nation, but you're not fighting a single nation. You attack Australia, declare war, what have you, and you're attacking half the world, thanks to the commonwealth of nations. Can you match the Combined military might of the Commonwealth, while maintaining fighting strength on all fronts, and defending on the home front, and trying to attack a nation that's half the world away at it's closest point, as well as being one of the hardest nations on earth to invade?
If you do, you need to rethink.
Sorry if that hurts, Americans, But your giant Khaki army Penis is a flaccid joke. The only thing that would save your Giant Green Genital at this point is that little blue pill of the "Nuke everyone, Fuck the world" plan, as one of the few nations that could carry it out.
And a competent fighting force within spitting distance of your border, a number of major cities and economic hubs, and your capital? Sure, They don't have the arrogance, nor are they given to thinking that they can win just by being America who are like, really good at wars and stuff, but it'd be foolish to disregard them.
Canada would probably stay neutral in a fight between Australia and the U.S. (being that if there was a fight there would be a good reason for them to be going at it) Canada has too much to lose economically in getting involved. (treaty or no treaty)
Aircraft carriers don't mean shit, unless you can get them somewhere where they can be effective, and that includes being able to afford to keep your supply lines going to them, the support ships to keep them safe, the Maintenance support to keep them in good repair so far from home, and the money and fuel to keep their pilots in the air and effective, and you have to be able to run submarines as a defence, since it only takes one of our subs to sink an unguarded air-craft carrier.
You're apparently unfamiliar with the concept of a Carrier Fleet. Each carrier has a fleet to defend it. We aren't just sending our carriers alone all over the world, that would be stupid.
And a competent fighting force within spitting distance of your border, a number of major cities and economic hubs, and your capital? Sure, They don't have the arrogance, nor are they given to thinking that they can win just by being America who are like, really good at wars and stuff, but it'd be foolish to disregard them.
We've been talking at length about our ability to attack pretty much anyone in the world, a la Force Projection. What do you think our force projection capabilities are within our own country? I'll give you a hint, we don't have to go that far. I don't think the Canadians would even make it to Albany be they got curb stomped.
And this whole scenario is based on you saying when couldn't invade Australian easily. Big fucking deal. It's much more likely that we'd get involved with a no-holds-barred war with Iran.
I've edited before I saw this, however, You're wrong. You're forgetting one important thing -The Commonwealth of Nations. An act of war on one of us, is an act of war on all of us, and one of our good friends in the commonwealth is Canada, who happen to be your next door neighbour.
Canada would probably stay neutral in a fight between Australia and the U.S. (being that if there was a fight there would be a good reason for them to be going at it) Canada has too much to lose economically in getting involved. (treaty or no treaty)
As long as they're under the Queen, as we are, I'm pretty sure they don't have much of a choice in the matter. If England Declares War to follow an attack on one of it's constitutional monarchies - and it's most likely that it would - then if the Queen says "Shit", Canada is asking What colour, shape, and how high you want it stacked, just as we would be if the reverse occurred. Just as has happened before in nearly every major war that Australia and Canada Have fought together in.
You're apparently unfamiliar with the concept of a Carrier Fleet. Each carrier has a fleet to defend it. We aren't just sending our carriers alone all over the world, that would be stupid.
No shit, George. That wouldn't be why I pointed that out, since Apreche seems to think "We have carriers" is the be all and end all of Naval power, and the only thing to consider when sending them out.
As long as they're under the Queen, as we are, I'm pretty sure they don't have much of a choice in the matter. If England Declares War to follow an attack on one of it's constitutional monarchies - and it's most likely that it would - then if the Queen says "Shit", Canada is asking What colour, shape, and how high you want it stacked, just as we would be if the reverse occurred. Just as has happened before in nearly every major war that Australia and Canada Have fought together in.
I'm fairly sure that there is no possible scenario where war would ever happen between the Commonwealth and the US. If it ever did, it would be between the US and an individual member, likely having already itself been expelled.
More to the point, I'm fairly confident that not even the combined military might of the EU could displace American air and sea supremacy.
Comments
China's going to be like a marathon. Get some Gatorade and Powerbars.
More to the point, fully industrialized nations don't engage in equal-footing external warfare anymore. In the event of resource wars or other events bringing such to pass again, the US is likely able to mobilize unsurpassable force afield with surprising rapidity. Nuclear war isn't a likely scenario, as it ensures complete losses for whatever non-US side initiates it. Global conventional war presents unique advantages to the United States regardless of the disposition of her allies. Constrained conventional war leaves the US with near total force projection supremacy in most cases. In the event of a more balanced constrained conventional war (Taiwan/China/US, say), the US has the upper hand in terms of discretion to engage. I.e., the US can project into the theatre, but the enemy can't project back into the US. The worst-case scenario for the US ends up being a backing off after a discrete catastrophic loss (a single aircraft carrier, for example), followed by economic warfare.
Wars between industrialized Western nations are highly unlikely.
Apparently, that "pen" everyone keeps talking about is a +5 Adamantite Vorpral Keen Shocking Burst. While the "sword" has NERF stamped on the side.
As Rommel said, and not for nothing, "If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it." and as said by one Vietcong leader - "Worse than the Americans were the Australians. The Americans style was to hit us, then call for planes and artillery. Our response was to break contact and disappear if we could. The Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerrilla fighters, better at ambushes. They liked to stay with us instead of calling in the planes. We were more afraid of their style."
Though, as rym said, it's a pretty remote possibility, extremely unlikely. Economic war is the order of the day between modern nations nowadays, rather than actual knock-down, drag-out war. But we're still very proud of our Warrin'.
Amusing side note - In World war two, there was a manner of firing the Squad Support machine guns that were attached to Armoured regiments, which was for a team of three, carrying the gun and ammo, to run a few hundred feet ahead of the armour, drop down, set up the Bren, fire for a bit, pack up the gun once the armour has passed, then run ahead of the armour again in a bounding overwatch sort of fashion.
The Australian Machine-gun teams got the shits with this, and decided instead to simply have one man feeding the Gunner ammunition, and the gunner walking with the assembled gun, using the left leg of the bipod as an extra grip and a weight tied to the barrel to help compensate for muzzle climb, and strolled along next to the tanks firing from the hip. Must've startled the fuck out of the Germans.
I would argue that the majority of our troubles in that conflict stem from poor strategic decision-making, as opposed to any tactical or operational failures.
We're currently pretty close on research that will greatly increase the range of the network, and it's sensitivity. Frankly, I don't think they'll be satisfied till they can track a mosquito fart in Finland, but as it is, you're hardly sneaking in, nor coming in without a fight, boyo.
We know you're coming before you complete take off, and the more air resources you put within range of our shores, the more air resources you're making vulnerable to counter-attack.
Land Attack is also not viable, and a naval assault would be incredibly hard, considering. New Zealand's got our back, and we're great old mates with Canada, having fought alongside them quite closely in a number of Wars. And this ain't Russia. You don't get to walk home, you fail, and you're swimming your ass back.
Further, don't forget the Australian and New Zealand Populace. You're fighting a war in two styles, against at least three nation's armies(one of which is in close proximity to your own home) and two populaces which are quite comfortable with the idea of guerrilla warfare - Particularly in Australia, where part of the deal in world war II was that we thought Japan was going to invade, and we were ballyed up to fuck. Even now days, you're hard pressed to find a farmer without a few shotguns and rifles, plenty of ammo, a half a crate of gellignite, and god knows what else in the back shed, along with an intimate knowledge of the area you're going to have to fight them in, and a far greater grasp of bushcraft than you do.
I'm not saying you'd lose, But be damned if it wouldn't be a Pyrrhic victory.
The US has 11 carriers.
As Rym was saying, several countries may have defense, but our force projection abilities are unmatched by anyone.
And Canada as an ally? Seriously? Canada and it's population of 34 million? And vast acres of cold?
Further, We're a force in the naval department, and have formidable anti-air and anti-missile defences. You want the west coast? Well, Good luck to you, it's a really long walk to get to the east coast, and once you start approaching the east coast from the west, it's suicidally bad terrain for fighting a war in. You want to try coming in from the coast? Welcome to a massive assortment of small islands, rocky shoals, strange currents, dangerous reefs, and constant hit-and-run harassment from our naval and air forces. Air Assault is your best bet, but we know you're coming, and we've got rather decent defences against what you're going to throw, so even though it's your best bet, you're going to get your teeth kicked in just for the sake of kicking the other guy in the shins.
As for your Trade Embargos, That's going to hurt the USA a hell of a lot - We're major resource exporters, and you just happen to be one of our biggest customers. Further, for it to really hurt us, you'd also have to threaten to close yourselves off from most of the world - China, the ASEAN, Chile, New Zealand, and the rest of the commonwealth. You're also Risking Japan, who we have a very strong connection with.
Can America really do without our wheat and wool, minerals such as iron-ore and gold, and energy in the forms of liquified natural gas and coal, as well as the various exports of the other nations listed? Not without some heavy economic bleeding, one suspects, and considering that you've already got a weakened economy, such bleeding could possibly result in a USSR style economic Exsanguination.
(Admittedly, I'm not an expert on economics, and might be off base here on some points)
Lastly - You're not in range for cruise missiles by a few hundred miles or so. However, you are quite handily in range of our allies, some of whom are armed with much the same. You're stupidly assuming that we'd bother to come over while you still had these defences in place, or any carriers left. And further forgetting that you'd have a good half of the world standing against you, including Canada.
I mean, seriously, Why would we come get you? We can watch you burn in the flames of your own arrogance and stupidity in declaring war and trade embargos in the first place, without even pulling a trigger.
Aircraft carriers don't mean shit, unless you can get them somewhere where they can be effective, and that includes being able to afford to keep your supply lines going to them, the support ships to keep them safe, the Maintenance support to keep them in good repair so far from home, and the money and fuel to keep their pilots in the air and effective, and you have to be able to run submarines as a defence, since it only takes one of our subs to sink an unguarded air-craft carrier.
How many flotillas do you think you can afford to field in that situation, before you start really getting in the shit?
How much do you think the US is willing to lose before it gives up, or before it starts to crash and burn like the USSR? And a competent fighting force within spitting distance of your border, a number of major cities and economic hubs, and your capital? Sure, They don't have the arrogance, nor are they given to thinking that they can win just by being America who are like, really good at wars and stuff, but it'd be foolish to disregard them. As is, in this scenario, your capability for a Pyrrhic victory at best. Your force projection is unmatched by any single nation, but you're not fighting a single nation. You attack Australia, declare war, what have you, and you're attacking half the world, thanks to the commonwealth of nations. Can you match the Combined military might of the Commonwealth, while maintaining fighting strength on all fronts, and defending on the home front, and trying to attack a nation that's half the world away at it's closest point, as well as being one of the hardest nations on earth to invade?
If you do, you need to rethink.
Sorry if that hurts, Americans, But your giant Khaki army Penis is a flaccid joke. The only thing that would save your Giant Green Genital at this point is that little blue pill of the "Nuke everyone, Fuck the world" plan, as one of the few nations that could carry it out.
And this whole scenario is based on you saying when couldn't invade Australian easily. Big fucking deal. It's much more likely that we'd get involved with a no-holds-barred war with Iran.
More to the point, I'm fairly confident that not even the combined military might of the EU could displace American air and sea supremacy.