In the end, what has really changed? Some of the toys got fancier, you traded forests for jungles, for deserts, and Christians for whatever the Vietnamese were, for Muslims. Beyond that, the goals remain the same. You might have to adjust for civilians, but that's about it.the clockmaker said:YOu have the less understanding of modern conflicts than anyone that I have seen in a long time. It is just fucking mind boggling. You seriously think nothing has changed since world war 2? seriously? You know what me and my mates would say if you asked the question of what has changed, we would ask you what part of the war on terror you meant, because Afghan 10years ago is as differant from afghan today as vietnam was from the Indonesian war of independence. 'Nothing has changed' that statement is a fucking insult to the, I shit you not, millions of man hours in doctrine/capability/tactic/equipment/cultural development that occur with each warfare paradigm shift.Faraja said:words
You could make the arguments about the importance of electronic and cyber warfare, but jamming won't do you much good against hand signals, and cyber warfare won't mean much to someone who just wants to the invaders off their property.
Do I understand it all? No, not in it's entirety, but I'm talking about an all out invasion of the US, not some war over Taiwan or Tibet.the clockmaker said:You seem to think that firing a weapon is all there is to warfighting, or that being a good shot is all that is required to be an effective combatant. False. YOu seem to think that all wars are total wars, False. Yo do not understand your own nations geopolitical weight or how that weight is maintained and so you are putting it into simple terms so that it makes sense through your lens of ignorance.
Certainly not one you'd want to go to first, but any military would be foolish to ignore their understanding of local terrain, or their abilities to provide support when the chips are down.the clockmaker said:-Civilian combatants are not an asset in combat, they are unreliable, prone to atrocities, prone to panic, difficult to coordinate and liable to see themselves as rambo. They do more harm than good and provide no real asset to the defence of the realm. At most they can stand there and die as a distraction.
I don't disagree that it would be costly, but I still see no reason reason why the American people (or any people) should have to give up a means of defense if their militaries fail, or turn against them.the clockmaker said:-Warfare between two first order powers cannot occur without instantly destroying both economies and the cost involved would be so crippling that both parties will wish to end the war as quickly as possible through the 'best acceptable peace' that is not total victory for either side, that is, perhaps, the US abandoning Taiwan or the PRC recognising it.
Seriously, stop trying to apply 'what you would do' to warfighting, because you clearly have fucking zero understanding of it.
Also, nice job ignoring the thing I origonally quoted you for, do you accept that your source was wrong or not?[/quote]
I think you have me confused with the guy who was talking about Australian violent crimes. Different guy.
Funny, I did, and saw nothing of the sort.the clockmaker said:and please preview your posts before posting, it is kind of annoying when your words are in my quote and vice versa.