 |
| |
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
In the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing yesterday, it was mentioned that the US is losing about a battalion a month. Not in terms of deaths, but casualties in general, which appear to be 18000. Now, while many of the injured will end up returning to duty, is this really an attrition rate we can afford? Especially given that there are not that many areas that we can shift troops out of elsewhere in the world without destabilizing the region (DPRK, for instance).
Given the lack of apparent/achievable military objectives in Iraq, it is unclear to me at what point we can say "we win," and leave. And as time stretches on toward whenever that point may come, we will continue to lose troops, and at a certain point, we may not be able to replace them all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I'm worried that we may run out of Iraqi civilians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm worried that we may run out of Iraqi civilians. |
That is not a risk - even Saddam couldn't get rid of those civilians despite his murder rate was higher than the current from the insurgents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
'Tis true Washington, D.C., was sacked by British forces, but I guess that's to be expected — retribution — when we did something along those lines to Montreal, Canada (I think that's the right city anyway).
Since then, I think our armed forces have done reasonably well against Mexico, Spain, in World War I, in World War II, during the Cold War, in Korea and during the first Gulf War. Not so good in Vietnam, and the books are still open on Gulf War II.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
In the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing yesterday, it was mentioned that the US is losing about a battalion a month. Not in terms of deaths, but casualties in general, which appear to be 18000. Now, while many of the injured will end up returning to duty, is this really an attrition rate we can afford? Especially given that there are not that many areas that we can shift troops out of elsewhere in the world without destabilizing the region (DPRK, for instance).
Given the lack of apparent/achievable military objectives in Iraq, it is unclear to me at what point we can say "we win," and leave. And as time stretches on toward whenever that point may come, we will continue to lose troops, and at a certain point, we may not be able to replace them all. |
Actually you just gave a fairly poor example in my view. While there is the question of whether Kim Jung Ill is crazy enough to think he can win, South Korea is definately capable of dealing with a North Korean invasion on its own. When you look at tanks for instance, North Korea most advanced tank is the T-62, a tank that originally came out in 1961. Most of their tanks are still T-55 varients, which are 1950s technology, and they even have T-34s still in service! By contrast, South Korea has an increasingly large number of rather modern and extremely capable K1 and K1-A1 tanks. South Korea even has some T-80 tanks that if got from Russia in return for forgiving Russia some of the money it owed South Korea. The air force and navies of the two countries come out even more lopsided in South Korea's favor. North Korea does have a fairly large Air Force size wise, but most of it consists of Mig-17s, Mig-19s, and Mig-21s.
Last edited by Mordoch on 25-06-2005 at 18:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-06-2005 01:28
|