Re:Study on US-Russia nuclear war: 91.5 MM casualties in fir...
by robonerd on Saturday April 16, 2022 @03:34PM
(#31055383)
I did specify "any conventional military force"; 'winning' an occupation/insurgency is quite another matter, particularly when the 'win conditions' are political rather than military. And doubly true when those political win conditions are poorly defined in the first place.
But trust me, defense industry lobbyists are very eager for the US Government to spend even more money to address these shortcomings...
Re:Study on US-Russia nuclear war: 91.5 MM casualties in fir...
by karaterobot on Saturday April 16, 2022 @03:46PM
(#31055480)
The ability for the U.S. to wage numerous simultaneous wars is about the cold war. It's effectively the basis for NATO's deterrent effect, reducing the number and scale of wars in Europe and Asia compared to the pre-NATO era.
Re:Study on US-Russia nuclear war: 91.5 MM casualties in fir...
by poxrud on Saturday April 16, 2022 @07:31PM
(#31057012)
Most of Ukraine is not “destroyed”. In fact most of it has not even been attacked.
Re:Study on US-Russia nuclear war: 91.5 MM casualties in fir...
by khoobid_shoma on Sunday April 17, 2022 @05:59AM
(#31059751)
Well, then the same is true for Afganistan. By destroy, I did not mean they have attacked every village.
Re:Study on US-Russia nuclear war: 91.5 MM casualties in fir...
by agapon on Sunday April 17, 2022 @04:52PM
(#31064393)
So, what do you mean?
I am in Ukraine and I do not feel like I am in a destroyed country.
An example of those wars is Afganistan. Yes, the US managed to destroy the country but could not win the war. Russia also destroyed Ukraine and probably will not win the war.