Russia invades Georgia

[CapelDodger]

The French still have considerable political influence in Africa. I'm pretty sure that translates in economic goodies for big French industries. And of course in diamonds for Giscard, from his buddy Bokasa.

More to the point, you could always depend on a superb dinner at Bokasa's villas. An obsessive gourmet, Bokasa would poach chefs from the finest French restaurants. Critics he preferred grilled.

 

[CapelDodger]

What's this I hear about Russia threatening Poland with nukes?

From what I hear the Russians just reminded the Poles which side of their nuclear shield they're on these days.

 

[CapelDodger]

Georgian bombing capacity is very limited and of course she is Ossetian. Might have been shelling.

What's really heart-breaking is when twelve-year-olds can tell the difference between bombing, rocketing, and shelling. At least this incident has been brief, and is very unlikely to be repeated for future twelve-year-olds. Who have enough to worry about at the best of times.

 

[geni]

The great mistake in the Kuwait War was to limit the aim to liberation of Kuwait that one time, rather than aiming to make Kuwait safe from Iraqi hostility. Had that been the aim the Saddam regime would have been toppled and everything would have settled down out there long ago.

With the amount of Iraqi equipment we truned into scrap metal I would suggest that Sadam's capacity to engage in war was significantly reduced. Going by what happened when we did go in and the various other issues at the (keeping the arabs in the coilition) stopping at Kuwait was a reasonable descision.

 

[CapelDodger]

With the amount of Iraqi equipment we truned into scrap metal I would suggest that Sadam's capacity to engage in war was significantly reduced. Going by what happened when we did go in and the various other issues at the (keeping the arabs in the coilition) stopping at Kuwait was a reasonable descision.

"Reasonable" is a value-judgement; I think it was lazy, simplistic, and uninformed. The ostensible reason for going back to finish the job was that the Saddam regime's capacity to pose a threat to its neighbours had been reconstituted. Which has credibility because at some point that would inevitably happen. The occupation of Kuwait was a symptom; the Saddam regime was the cause.

When you're riding a coalition you mustn't panic at defections, you have to judge them (or the threat of them) against the circumstances at the time. The focus must be on the objective, not on the coalition.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Well ethiopia is on two which means that it has invaded 40% of the countries it can reasonably invade. Has the US invaded about 40 countries?

This means that, other than the US, there are other militaristic countries in the world, being Ethiopia one of them.
China can reasonably invade maybe 20-30 (50? 100?) countries, and so could do Japan after a military build-up that would take only few years, but how many countries did they attack?

Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.

Oh, please..

What's this I hear about Russia threatening Poland with nukes?

This is the result of signing the treaty for placing US installations close to Russia (the so-called shield)

You know I heard something today about Russia comparing the missile defense system to nukes on cuba. Yea exactly the same thing.

Exactly the point

Not at all. It not only not crazy, it is profoundly reality based. America doesn't always get its way in NATO. Please understand I've been inside the belly of that beast. The other nations are not doormats. And some are just plain stubborn. Try working a joint security project with the Greeks and the Turks some day. It's a real treat.

The US can basically do whatever they want, inside NATO

 

[Matteo Martini]

Try 10 years. Of course, if Japan buys the necessary equipment elsewhere instead of developing it themselves, 5 years may be doable.


Much simpler to do.

I keep to say two years, at maximum, maybe less.
But even if it were 5 or 10 years, why Japan is not invading any country in the Asia Pacific region, let alone all the world?

To a large extent the reason only the US currently has those capabilities is one of the leftovers from WWII I mentioned before.

Much of current US military doctrine is a leftover from Cold War doctrine, which by itself was constructed based on WWII experience.

To obtain the same capabilities the US has would have required other nations to develop them, while the US only had to maintain what they ended WWII with. Basic inertia does that.

Yes, (laugh), because China and Brazil do not have an army which can land an attack in a range of 1000km.-2000km. from their borders.
Let alone Japan

 

[Ziggurat]

China can reasonably invade maybe 20-30 (50? 100?) countries,

No, it cannot. It's got a massive army, but it has a VERY hard time moving that army anywhere. An example of how hard a time was on display recently when they found themselves with very few helicopters for disaster relief. The old saying that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics holds rather dramatically here: you are apparently clueless about China's logistical limitations.

Yes, (laugh), because China and Brazil do not have an army which can land an attack in a range of 1000km.-2000km. from their borders.

And how, pray tell, would they do that? How do they move those forces? How do they keep them supplied with food, ammunition, and fuel?

Over land? It doesn't have that many neighbors, and a good many of them (like Afghanistan) are too sparsely connected over VERY rough terrain for the supply line needs they'd have. Check out google maps sometime, look at China's borders and you'll see what I mean. Two of them (India and Russia) are nuclear powers with sizeable conventional forces as well, and nobody has ever invaded a nuclear power. And a number of their neighbors are allies, which sort of makes invasion a non-starter. As for invading further countries overland by moving through their neighboring allies, what candidates are there? South Korea? Nope: they tried that before, they won't try again. Thailand? Maybe they could, but I think even the Chinese are tired of southeast asian military adventurism after the mess in Vietnam and Cambodia.

What about invasion via the sea? Well, China doesn't have that kind of sea lift capacity. The capacity they DO have is focussed on Taiwan, which is only 100 miles away, and for that they don't have enough yet (though they're building more). They sure as hell can't send and supply a force anywhere in Africa by boat.

Over air? They've got almost no airlift capacity.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, it cannot. It's got a massive army, but it has a VERY hard time moving that army anywhere. An example of how hard a time was on display recently when they found themselves with very few helicopters for disaster relief. The old saying that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics holds rather dramatically here: you are apparently clueless about China's logistical limitations.

In 2008, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2007 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, Pentagon estimates range between US$97 and US$139 billion,[2] the second highest in the world after the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

I think you can buy a lot of chopters with this money..

And how, pray tell, would they do that? How do they move those forces? How do they keep them supplied with food, ammunition, and fuel?

Go look at the mechanical industry in China and tell me if they can not build the necessary infrastructure for a war?

Over land? It doesn't have that many neighbors, and a good many of them (like Afghanistan) are too sparsely connected over VERY rough terrain for the supply line needs they'd have. Check out google maps sometime, look at China's borders and you'll see what I mean. Two of them (India and Russia) are nuclear powers with sizeable conventional forces as well, and nobody has ever invaded a nuclear power. And a number of their neighbors are allies, which sort of makes invasion a non-starter.

Which is exactly my point (bold mine)

What about invasion via the sea? Well, China doesn't have that kind of sea lift capacity. The capacity they DO have is focussed on Taiwan, which is only 100 miles away, and for that they don't have enough yet (though they're building more). They sure as hell can't send and supply a force anywhere in Africa by boat.

People's Liberation Army Navy
[..]
Since then, it has undergone rapid modernisation. The PLAN also includes 35,000 Coastal Defence Force and 56,000 Naval infantry/Marines, plus a 56,000 PLAN Aviation naval air arm operating several hundred land-based aircraft and ship-based helicopters. As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a plan of developing a blue water navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy

Over air? They've got almost no airlift capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force
It currently consists of approximately 250,000 personnel and 2,300 combat aircraft,[2] making the PLAAF the largest air force in Asia and the third largest in the world behind the Russian Air Force, and the United States Air Force.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

In 2008, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2007 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, Pentagon estimates range between US$97 and US$139 billion,[2] the second highest in the world after the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

I think you can buy a lot of chopters with this money..

Hm. Possibly, yes. But they haven't bought them yet.

Go look at the mechanical industry in China and tell me if they can not build the necessary infrastructure for a war?

Takes time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force
It currently consists of approximately 250,000 personnel and 2,300 combat aircraft,[2] making the PLAAF the largest air force in Asia and the third largest in the world behind the Russian Air Force, and the United States Air Force.

Size != airlift capacity.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Hm. Possibly, yes. But they haven't bought them yet.

How you know?

Takes time.

This is not the reason.
The point may be that China does not feel necessary to have this capacity at all, as theydo not have much enemies, not as many as the US have

Size != airlift capacity.

Size ~ airlift capacity.

 

[gumboot]

You are suggesting that Japan can not build an army capable to invade, let`s say, the Philippines, in let`s say, two years?

I doubt it.

Or build an hundred of ICBM?

Even less likely.

Does Japan have any technical or logistical problem in doing so?

Yes.

Does Brazil have any technical problem to attack, let` s say, Paraguay?

Attack? No.
Invade? Some.
Occupy? More so.

Or China does not have the military capability to attack Mongolia?

Attack? No.
Invade? Some.
Occupy? More so.

or any other country in the range of 5000 kilometers or more?

Yes, this would be a major problem for them.

What are you talking about Gumboot?

I already told you. Strategic Airlift and Force Projection. Go look them up.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I doubt it.

Even less likely.

Yes.
[..]

You basically have no idea of what you are talking about. Took note and we move on..

 

[gumboot]

If you refer to global force projection yes. NATO has a standing amphibious force in the Med which can, if the US declines to operate, work as a modest EU, or WEU, or other ad hoc coalition force projection in that theater.

True enough, but how long can the NRF maintain force projection? Being able to project force into a desired place is a difficult enough task; being able to maintain that presence is the second half of the trick.

From what I've read the NRF is only self-sustainable for 30 days.

(I'm assuming you're referring to NRF or components of it, I can't find anything on any other standing NATO forces).

 

[gumboot]

Size ~ airlift capacity.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force has (if you include the 30 aircraft on order) a total of 36 Strategic Airlift aircraft. The USAF has over 200. The USAF aircraft can carry substantially bigger loads over substantially greater distances. Do the math.

 

[gumboot]

You basically have no idea of what you are talking about. Took note and we move on..

Oh the irony. Get back to us when you've done a crash course on logistics. Your comments here suggest you really do not understand the topic at all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The US can basically do whatever they want, inside NATO

1. Comically wrong.
2. You are embarassing yourself with an assertion from profound ignorance.
3. How many years did you work in NATO?

DR

 

[moon1969]

Propaganda war has started:

"BBC lies to us"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVrygbUzazA

 

[Darth Rotor]

Propaganda war has started:

"BBC lies to us"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVrygbUzazA

This edition of the propaganda war has been ongoing since since WW II ended.

This is merely a skirmish. Politics is a 24/7 continuum, the use of symbols and propaganda a method of working the political game.

For something longer on substance, and shorter on propaganda, see this piece:

The Bear is Back.

DR

 

[CapelDodger]

For something longer on substance, and shorter on propaganda, see this piece:

The Bear is Back.

DR

An excellent summation, IMO, and refreshingly free of value-judgements.

Neocon diplomacy seems to have been ill thought out. It encompasses recidivist bear-baiting and a concentration on the Middle East - where Russia is the other face of the vice, and thus a desirable ally. It always had "fiasco" written all over it.

The next President will have to pick up the pieces. Unless he decides to let them lie and cut his losses. Soft power projection in the Caucasus is hardly a pressing matter.