03-06-2003, 08:57 PM
Service in the US military has been my goal for all of my life. Therefore I have sought to learn as very much as possible about our capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc.
So, would the US be able to handle 2 major wars at one time?
Almost certainly, yes.
The US now posses 12 Aircraft carriers, each with it's own separate full battle group, including cruisers, light carriers, destroyers etc. This force includes capabilities for almost any mission, including bombing, air superiority, cruise missile launching capability, as well as amphibious and helicopter insertions of US Marines (Each battle group has at minimum 10,000). In the previous war in Iraq, only 3 carrier groups took part in the entire operation, with one group (I forget which ) Never releasing it's marines to combat (They were a diversion.)
War in Iraq, IMHO would play out much the same as the first war. It would be a quick, decisive victory.
Granted, Korea would most likely prove to be a tougher opponent due to the overwhelming devotion displayed by its soldiers. However, they still use outdated equipment and weapons, and therefore, I believe would be defeated.
However, the use of nukes pretty much screws all plans.
Any country possesing nukes is a huge threat to the US, as there is simply no good way to protect an army from nucleur attack.
As for Jarulfs accusations that the US is the most likely to use nukes....very much untrue. Although nucleur strategies have certainly been discussed for possible war with Iraq, they have been discussed for every major war since WW2. US nucleur power is one big deterrent that basically says this...."If you nuke us, we will turn your country into a huge glass parking lots for all to see."
More to come....I must go to class....If you are gonna reply to me, please hold off for about an hour....thanks.
So, would the US be able to handle 2 major wars at one time?
Almost certainly, yes.
The US now posses 12 Aircraft carriers, each with it's own separate full battle group, including cruisers, light carriers, destroyers etc. This force includes capabilities for almost any mission, including bombing, air superiority, cruise missile launching capability, as well as amphibious and helicopter insertions of US Marines (Each battle group has at minimum 10,000). In the previous war in Iraq, only 3 carrier groups took part in the entire operation, with one group (I forget which ) Never releasing it's marines to combat (They were a diversion.)
War in Iraq, IMHO would play out much the same as the first war. It would be a quick, decisive victory.
Granted, Korea would most likely prove to be a tougher opponent due to the overwhelming devotion displayed by its soldiers. However, they still use outdated equipment and weapons, and therefore, I believe would be defeated.
However, the use of nukes pretty much screws all plans.
Any country possesing nukes is a huge threat to the US, as there is simply no good way to protect an army from nucleur attack.
As for Jarulfs accusations that the US is the most likely to use nukes....very much untrue. Although nucleur strategies have certainly been discussed for possible war with Iraq, they have been discussed for every major war since WW2. US nucleur power is one big deterrent that basically says this...."If you nuke us, we will turn your country into a huge glass parking lots for all to see."
More to come....I must go to class....If you are gonna reply to me, please hold off for about an hour....thanks.
"Once you have tasted flight,
you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there
you have been, and there you will
always long to return."
-Leonardo da Vinci
you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there
you have been, and there you will
always long to return."
-Leonardo da Vinci