AEGIS defenceless against Russian jamming

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Doberman1, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. Doberman1

    Doberman1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/


    Russian Sukhoi Su -24 with the newest jamming complex paralyzed in the Black Sea the most modern American combat management system “Aegis” installed on the destroyer “USS Donald Cook”. Pavel Zolotarev, Deputy Director, Institute of USA and Canada, shares details about this version which is being actively discussed in the Russian media and by bloggers.

    US destroyer “Donald Cook” with cruise missiles “Tomahawk” entered the neutral waters of the Black Sea on April 10. The purpose was a demonstration of force and intimidation in connection with the position of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea. The appearance of American warships in these waters is in contradiction of the Montreux Convention about the nature and duration of stay in the Black Sea by the military ships of countries not washed by this sea.

    In response, Russia sent an unarmed bomber Su- 24 to fly around the U.S. destroyer. However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare complex. According to this version, “Aegis” spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded alarm. Everything went normally, American radars calculated the speed of the approaching target. And suddenly all the screens went blank. “Aegis” was not working any more, and the rockets could not get target information. Meanwhile, Su-24 flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turn and simulated missile attack on the target. Then it turned and repeated the maneuver. And did so 12 times.
     
  2. Doberman1

    Doberman1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the Pentagon which seeks a confrontation with Russia in Syria in hope of expanding its rhetoric and assistance to its pet war groups, this may come as unwelcome news. The U.S. Navy will be left totally exposed without a long range radar blanket, not to mention a serious disruption to any offensive capabilities by the naval units. The crew of the Donald Cook was so demoralized, they signed a petition denouncing part-taking in any such future bravado expeditions to (*)(*)(*)(*) off the Russkies.
     
  3. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IF this is true the blame lies in 2 places. In the Democrats and Obama administration that treat the military as irrelevant and only a waste of money. However, the other blame goes to old dogs in the military still demanding wasting billions of dollars on military antiques like the A-10 wanting the Navy to return to WWII battleships like old men playing with toy soldiers and model ships pretending they are Patton and Nimitz in WWII.

    IF this story is true, the USA Navy surface fleet is all but worthless in relation to Russia. But the Navy has a bad habit of liking to give as much notice to potential enemies as possible showing off new technology even before it is in production and in the field.

    Fortunately, the Air Force still has some sense that the military isn't about civilian politics or publicity campaigns showing off what they got. Generally, the Air Force is actually decade ahead of what it reveals it has. Fortunately the Air Force is shedding personnel rapidly trying to go against the political wind of shutting down the military to save money to allow the Air Force at least have a chance to remain technologically up to the times, if not still ahead of it. Stupid old people in Congress and ex-military maybe can force the Air Force to keep Vietnam era dinosaurs like the A-10, but it isn't going to spend 1 dollar more maintaining or staffing for them that the Air Force can avoid spending.

    Civil leaders don't care about the military - but then expect it to be able to accomplish whatver they want on a minute's notice. Old ex military are the worst problem the military has as they only can think in terms of the past - the reason German overran the greater size French military with the French military still having WWI generals still planning to refight WWI. If old military people controlled our military, we'd still have wooden sailing ships and ground strategy would be horseback calvary charges with swords and muskets.

    Sending a lone ship into the Black Seas so Russia could send the USA running with its tail between its legs is just how stupid Obama (and the Navy now) is. Russia is building up, and the USA is debating between shutting the military down or building returing to building dreadnaught battleships.
     
  4. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This story has already been debunked as propaganda. They made the same exact claim about another US Navy ship the Cook and the Navy release video footage clearly showing that not only was the ship aware of it but that it wasn't even an Su-24 it was an older fighter. This is nothing but your normal propaganda drivel from the state controlled media.
     
  5. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why I prefaced it with "IF" underlined and in bold. Glad to hear it's false. If true, we're in real trouble.
     
  6. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In 1988 two Soviet Navy vessels responded to U.S. Navy ships, testing the Soviet Union's territorial waters in the Black Sea, by ramming the U.S. ships. The U.S. ships departed the area after an hour.

    The United States and Russia (formerly USSR) have almost gone to war on several occasions. Of course the Cuban missile crisis is probably the closest and this was narrowly averted after a USAF major was shot down and killed while piloting a U-2 spy plane on a mission over Cuba. It could be said he was a casualty of the Cold War.

    Despite the idea, the Cold War was nothing more than drinking beer in Germany for a typical U.S. service member, most of the time it was pins and needles. There's no doubt...we hated them, and were prepared to go to war...that is what we trained for. I served in the mid to late1980s, the latter part of the Cold War prior to the USSR's collapse.

    Cooler heads prevailed thank goodness, and now...well Putin seems to be going back to antagonizing, poking and prodding...almost wanting to go to war.

    This would not end well, there is no scenario that would achieve a clear cut victor.

    The United States has an economy that is 8 times that of Russia...but Russia would fight to the last man and spend the last ruble. Eventually someone would use a tactical nuclear weapon and then God help us all.

    So in all seriousness, those who seem to be wanting a conflict between Russia and the United States thinking there wil be clear cut winner; be careful what you wish for. A war like this would cause immeasurable suffering on both sides, as it no doubt would expand beyond a localized conflict and expand beyond conventional ordnance.
     
  7. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the level of cowardice and fear as in your message as to why the USA is retreating and surrendering all over the world. We have the Obama doctrine of RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" even from inferior forces. Putin understands our president is a coward so he doesn't need a greater military.

    Nor do you understand Russia. Putin isn't Stalin nor has Stalin's power. He hurts the Russian oligarchy and super rich too much and they'll eliminate Putin.

    Your claim is that the USA must be submissive to and run away from Putin because Putin will destroy earth if not is as wrong as it gets. Yet it has always been known what you do to a mad-man holding a grenade telling you to kill yourself or he'll pull the pin. You say, "Go ahead, pull it."

    Putin no more has authority to start a nuclear war than does Obama for some wild eyed poker playing with the losing hand.

    And it is a myth that if Russian planes or ships shot at American planes or ships or visa versa then suddenly we are in war with Russia that then goes to nuclear war. Russian and American subs used to play bumper-cars with each other. No war from it. Paranoid, cowardly people should NEVER have control of the military or foreign policy. If you have the stronger hand, you play it regardless of the other side's bluffing.

    When the Russian general showed up demanding all US aircraft get out of Syria within the hour, the response should have been to send squadrons over Syria and see if the Russian Air Force is willing to take on the USAF. When that extreme of belittlement form of "do what I say or else" is presented, the exact response of the President should have been to pick the "OR ELSE." When the president is going to let himself be SO trivialized that any Russian general can order our military around should be exactly never. Literally, that Russian general is now the Commander In Chief of our military in that region, not Obama.

    Putin met for 90 minutes with Obama. And then announced his conclusion that Obama is an anti-American fool and coward - and acted accordingly on his analysis of Obama. For this, the world is laughing at the USA and running to make deals with Russia, since Putin is now in control and the USA has been self castrated to assure Putin we won't give him any trouble and won't compete for any women he wants for himself.

    Nor is the Cold War as you presented it to be. The Cold War policy of the USA was NOT "run away! run away!" terrified of nuclear war. Documents did come to show that the USSR vastly more feared the USA than we feared them. It should stay that way. People of the view of your message should not be allowed any command or influence towards the military or foreign policy. Rather, have some role in some social welfare agency or counseling rape victims maybe with "at least you didn't fight the rapist" assurances.

    You seem to forget that we won the Cold War. It wasn't by retreat and cowardly being submissive.
     
  8. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah yes, a keyboard commando ready to take on Putin like an American Rambo!

    America can no longer afford to be Global police officers.

    We have spent nearly a $1.5 Trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost the equivalent to Russia's entire annual GDP!

    Do you consider these monies well invested? I sure don't, any sane person sure doesn't think the return on investment of blood and treasure invested in these conflicts, amounted to much.

    While I am no fan of our President, there's not much choice left but to reduce our presence in the Middle East. It is an area in perpetual war.

    Neo-Conservativism's propensity for pounding the war drums is precisely why a Progressive like President Obama earned two terms. It took that long to rid the foul taste of President Bush's failed neo-conservative foreign policy and the notion of nation building.

    Now if you're so hell bent on taking on Putin...to quote Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men,"

    I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

    The problem with the keyboard commandos tough talking is it's always their guts and someone elses blood.
     
    toddwv and (deleted member) like this.
  9. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is Obama's stupid run-away policy that is the cause of the current chaos. Maybe you believe we are there because we're nice guys, huh? Being police? You have no clue, just listening to media talking heads.

    If Russia puts together Syria, Iraq and Iran as we run away, Russia will control the world supply of oil as Saudi Arabia would have to cease keeping prices low. Between Russia, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, They do control world oil - and in this world economy and the world monetary system.

    This would yield TRILLIONS to Russia - and cost the USA trillions and worse to the EU - but they became cowards long ago. If that happens, oil goes off the USA dollar - and the dollar then goes in the toilet. Russia and China will fully control the world economy. Who controls the oil, controls the world.

    Maybe, just maybe, the USA could maintain a standard of living better than Mexico, maybe. Probably not. At least they have factories. We are too good now to allow evil dangerous factories here.

    It was the USA being tough in the past why the USA is wealthy and powerful now. That wealth and power wanes the more the USA tries to be "good." The do-gooders turned victory into defeat in Iran and Afghanistan under the "be good" doctrine of war and foreign policy. National interests aren't about being "good." You may have noticed Russia isn't sending food and medical supplies into Syria nor any mention of rebuilding anything. Putin is doing what rational foreign and military policy should be.

    What is good is that you don't have any decision ability in the military now, and I am confident you had none while in the service either. Being in the military isn't really about being safe and drinking beer.

    Keyboard paranoia and fear is worse than keyboard commandos. Really, Putin isn't sending nuclear missiles to get you.

    Obama wasn't elected because of foreign policy. He was elected by promising free everything and by playing the white-guilt card.
     
  10. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem to be the one in fear.
    The U.S. spent over 10 times what Russia has on defense spending in 2010.

    No one is "afraid" of Putin, the question is, is the Middle East worth investing blood and treasure..and the answer is a resounding no. Putin will fail the same as the U.S....even if Assad retains power. The Middle East is destined to be in perpetual war, let Putin make the same mistakes and drain his nation's treasure.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You certainly decided to completely change the topic to a general rant against the military, didn't you?

    I suppose the USA could treat it's military personnel and ex military personnel the way other countries do to address you concerns of military costs.

    I bet your favorite president was Jimmy Carter, right? He knew how to deal with Iran.
     
  12. Doberman1

    Doberman1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, seems this story is a year old. However the information it provides is verified by different credible sources.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476
     
  13. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excuse me?

    I have nothing against the military, I served in it as both active and reserve. I'd recommend it to anyone. My "rant" is about civilian leaderships use of the military, mainly the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which destablized the Middle East and fed the Arab Spring movement. The cascading consequences of which are still being felt today in the form of ISIS and other extremist groups vying for relevance in Syria and other regions.

    In addition to those killed in action, we have thousands of Iraq war veterans with traumatic brain injuries that will require care for the rest of their lives, hundreds of thousands of veterans with PTSD. It is precisely because I care about them that military force should always be a last resort.

    Leadership knew full well in 1991 that ousting Saddam Hussein would unleash a civil war within Iraq and destabliize the region. The policy of containment was the best course of action at the time.

    Anyway without getting too far off track. Putin is bound and determined to give Russia a broader geo-political sphere of influence in the region, and you seem to think American military intervention is necessary to challenge him.

    Well there are ways to challenge Putin aside from military force and projection, and these avenues should be exhausted prior to investing in the most serious of decisions...utilizing our men and women in the armed forces as tools of diplomacy.

    You see, they are not faceless pawns ready to be sacrificed at the altar of freedom to me...now I may not know their names individually, but collectively I know exactly who they are because I myself served and I know full well the sacrifices involved in deploying to support and fight foreign wars. I cannot in good conscience send these men and women off to do this without having explored and exhausted all other means to acheive a geo-poltical goal outside of military force...some of which may entail a compromise, acceptance and realization this is a messy World. We cannot be a force of good in all places and at all times at the point of a bayonet.
     
  14. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sacrificing military personne at the alter of freedom? Yes, that is what our military personnel have done many times. If being such a "pawn" is unacceptable, then stay out of the military. The military is a tool of diplomacy and diplomacy is a tool of the military. The walk softly but carry a big stick doctrine, rather than the current practice of being a big mouth but known coward. Possibly more often than n- ot, who wins their goals is who has the most courage, not who has the nicest words.

    The flaw of the USA in Iraq was the exact opposite you suggest. The first war against Iraq was a stunning victory - until Colin Powell convinced Bush that it'd look bad if just kept slaughtering the Iraqi military and then proceed on to remove Saddam Hussein - with at that time Muslim forces willing to do the city street fighting with our support. But for that "be nice" decision there would have been no second Gulf War.

    The flaw of the second Iraq Gulf War II otherwise wouldn't have been necessary but for not finishing Gulf War I - error was no post war plan and stupid decisions such as eliminating the Iraqi military leaving Iraq a lawless land. Then believing we would exhibit influence by proving how nice we are, rather than acting fully like successful conquerors taking the spoils of war - and then rewarding those indigenous leaders who supported us while giving them the means to eliminate leaders who opposed up. Rather than begging them to like us, causing them to beg us to not destroy them. Ultimately it will be necessary to leave, but then the indigeous powers strong enough to keep others out. That tactic has been successful all over the world for centuries.

    I don't think you read my writing the USA should be "a force of good" in terms of usage of our military. Rather, our military should never be the good police for other people. Our military should be so terrifying to others that the absolutely last thing they want happen is made the USA so unhappy that we send it. Because if it comes, it will be an unstoppable force of destruction.

    Creating chaos is a weapon. The West has, until now, keep Islamic theocratic radicalism weak and not united is by a mixture of selectively military force, selectively preventing any side from gaining overwhelming superior power, and doing so by who we militarily back up and who we do not. And this has worked for a century. The Iran deal flies in the face of this as does administration policy now overall.

    Yes, there are times to get out. This isn't one of those. What is at stake is the world supply of oil - and in that the economy, which should be considered among the most vital of national defense and military resources. If you think Putin was going to send up Russian fighters to shoot down American aircraft, that is just far too great a level of fear. Russians don't want to die any more than Americans, and their experience in Afghanistan proved that.

    It wouldn't take war with Russia to prevent Russia from taking over Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Yemen. BUT if Putin's position is either we surrender or it's war, then war it is. As long as he believes the USA will do anything to prevent war, we have no military or foreign policy whatsoever that means anything. The USSR leadership did believe Kennedy would go to war, so they backed down. They believed Reagan was both willing to go to war against Russia and that he was furiously preparing to do so - and the USSR threw in the towel. Fear doesn't work.

    But to your main objection, being in the military is volunteering to be cannon folder if that's what it comes to. It is a willingness to die on command for decisions you don't get to make regardless of how much you disagree. Otherwise the military can not function. Since ours is a voluntarily military, there is no legitimate complaint.

    The first period of WWII was exactly about sacrificing service members in inferior equipment to cause attrition of Germany forces and equipment. How many aircrew do you think got into Flying Fortresses headed for Germany with no fighter support thought "this is crazy, this is suicide" - but they went anyway. Or tank crews in early Sherman tanks going up against German Panthers - our strategy being having the ability to lose many times more tanks and tank crews than Germany - and we still win? Soldiers do get sacrificed. It comes with the job.

    Foreign policy in conflict is inherently intermixed with military policy and actions - and even more potential military action. Usually, if the other side knows you won't fight, they know they win. That is what the "negotiations" with Iran were about. They knew with certainty the USA would not fight. They knew how many Americans are like you, ranting about avoiding war with Iran - and in doing so left no tools for negotiations whatsoever. They knew the EU had already folded.

    Let me ask you this. Maybe one thing we can agree on? Do you think it is long overdue that Germany and all EU countries pay the bill and provide the troops for their own defense? We can be allies for actual war, but for maintaining a military they should pay for and do it all themselves. To me, that has been the great military waste. Time for Japan to defend itself, though us as allies. Same for S. Korea. I don't see McArthur as a great military leader, but as a fool to agree that we would defend Japan for free at our expensive.

    We aren't going to agree on most of this, but what are your thoughts on that?
     
  15. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PS, I'm very much not PC on military and foreign policy. I fall more along the lines of manifest destiny thinking.
     
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you think if someone else were have been in the White House in 2010 that the "Arab Spring" would still have occurred ?

    Obama was a big supporter of the Arab Spring and also threw a long time ally, President Mubarak under the bus.

    I don't see where Iraq fits into the Arab Spring but I do see where Obama's failed foreign policies and always bad mouthing America while always defending Islam and was celebrating what was happening in the Arab world in 2010.


    Obama is a community organizer and what do community organizers do ?

    Pro democracy :roflol:
     
  17. Doberman1

    Doberman1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This encounter clearly shows that most of the U.S. servicemen will fight good when the odds are excellent and they enjoy an upper hand, but then they would not be ready to die for their politicians, ideologues, and the policy when the odds stack against them.
     
  18. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Russia's alleged capability to electronically jam a Navy ship's Aegis defense system is highly suspect given this particular quote...

    Where do they derive the crew of this ship is only 27?
    I searched for this and discovered the typical crew is 33 officers, 38 chief petty officers and 210 enlisted personnel.

    Besides, the USN, the U.S Armed Forces for that matter... are not Wal-Mart, you can't "quit" on a whim. I was in airlift, we're basically sitting ducks in the skies. If air superiority is lost, it would be the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel to down a C-130. If fear is a valid reason to "quit" the services, well you have no place serving in the first place. Fear is a given...it comes down to fear management and not allowing it to overwhelm you. I cannot envision a Sailor quitting because a Russian interceptor allegedly jammed the ship's air defenses, even if the story was true. This story has elements to it that are complete fabrications.

    The story is a propaganda piece.
     
  19. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Here's how the USNI reported on the USS Donald Cook incident.



     
  20. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IF this is true, old battleships and planes like the A-10 wouldn't have as big of an issue because they're not fully computer controlled. A newer B2 bomber would fall out of the sky if all of its electronics shut down because its design is inherently unstable and requires computers to continuously correct its flight controls. Our technology gives us a huge advantage. Any military that wishes to actually threaten us is going to do what they can to take that advantage from us. If you have an enemy that can see the whole battlefield in a fairly up to date manner and drop ordinance within 10 feet of where they want then you need to knock that ability out or you will not live long. Look at Iraq.

    By completely abandoning "old" technology we potentially take equipment off the field vs a competent enemy with an electronics counter. There's a reason we still use a map and compass, and there's a reason fighters still have guns.
     
  21. Rerem

    Rerem New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BULL. The Chicken Little and Partisain garbage aside.... A few points....

    The President does not micromanage stuff like the Navy's radar systems. IF indeed....the Russians succeded in negating Navy radar... do you think that info is made public? Jamming ain't new... it's fairly effective but NOT perfect.

    there's a valid point that Radar,electronic systems, of ALL sorts have a theoretical vulnerability. I ASSUME the Russians can at least do stuff we've done for 20+ years. When it's not real COMBAT... more the usual GAMES...we won't shoot down that plane... which,I'm sure is not hard in daytime,close range.
     
  22. Rerem

    Rerem New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We DO have some gear that's been around...and still works. A-10? It's THE plane made to do THAT job. Meanwhile.. the B-52 and C-130 are STILL major assets..and they do the job. How long has the M-16 been in action? Even stuff like the Humvee, the Bradley.....have been in service quite awhile.

    Our Military spending is HIGH relative to anyone. It's been awhile since we USED many of our "big ticket items". Even as budgets constrain.. we ARE doing new stuff. We want things that are more Air Mobile. The Stryker is a good example. We got a new SP Artillery unit on the way,smart..but also lighter. More Airmobile. Snipers now are getting .338 Lapua for extra range and SR25 for a semi-auto sharpshooter role. We have stealthy fighters coming online. We got new drones, robotic scouts..etc.

    what's next? Well.....Russia and China MIGHT be the scary part, but "Mutually Assured Destruction" is still an excuse for all. It a MAJOR war.. Shyt happens.. and the risks of the Nuke threshold makes everyone look at 'cost effective" at Risk-reward. N Korea? They ain't rational but I've looked at that and on their own.. they could raise some hell...but...lose BADLY. The NK "elites" could LOSE their power (and lives). The Wild card.. is China. N Korea has no other friends. If China vetoes NK aggression... that's big. If China lets them off the leash, gives a nudge,some support.. then the NK MIGHT be stupid enough to do an attack.

    IF.....N Korea attacked. A key is that Seoul is quite close to the DMZ. However.. then the NK's must cross the HAN river..under fire. The South Koreans KNOW that. The HAN, at SEOUL is WIDE...how do they cross? If they get hung up...ROK and US Airpower overwhelms them. The NK can attack in large numbers..but you can't stage 500,000+ troops and nobody notices.

    Iran? Iran has a good idea of what they CAN do...and can't. Their politics splits among Shiite radicals.. and more pragmatic seculatr types. Short term... nothing big gonna happen.

    ISIS? Something will happen. Our problem is.. we are tired of that whole area. ISIS is contained. Euoros are helping the Kurds, Iran is helping the Iraq Govt, Russia is....who knows. The USA (aka infidels) ain't ideal in a sectarial fight in the Sunni area. Us having "boots" with no Sunni ally... plays into ISIS hands. That.. and we do not want to waste money or lives on "more of the same". IF..... we DO get some alliance, then our hardware is stuff we'd developed and used in Iraq + Afghanistan.

    Some OTHER scenario? I guess I can think of some.. but those are not likely. Most would be us using rather small scale force. As is... we HAVE a global reach. We can do big scale ...small scale.

    The Last War? Which one?
     

Share This Page