They ran the numbers.
The American stealth bomber fleet doesn’t even get off the runway.
If only the Pentagon hosted yearly war games and we could see what would happen,
IF ONLY!
1 Like
What do they know! I heard they are losers
well the dutch once sunk half a carrier group with a single submarine.
so maybe.
Ut going after the troops is fruitless! Fruitless I say!
the forced deployed outside of America would be toast, it would really come down to how much of the Air force and Navy are stunk to move asset from America to the war front.
Carrier are become less effective the Navy said they can’t operate within 1,000 nautical miles of the Chinese coast without being sunk.
America fighter jet are a powerful tool if they can get in the air, which is becoming harder and harder with the advancement of missile technology.
Close combat is basically done for
Try studying up a bit on WWII.
How many of those major battles took place at or near bases?
We don’t need our stealth bombers to launch retaliatory strikes.
What battle was that?
Oh boy that’s like studying ww1 in order to prep for ww2.
No, it’s like how wars of conquest are fought.
You can’t conquer and occupy a country to take it for your own without a huge mobile ground force.
I guess somehow the idea we are talking about nukes was missed here?
Your whole army would be gone. There would be nothing to occupy because the land would be worthless.
The French were not launching a war of conquest.
And again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
ICBM’s are not used for troop concentrations they are used on major cities and to target missile bases.
Becsuse what? You are applying rules I dont have to follow at all?
I just hit your army with a ibcm…what you gonna do? Say that’s not what they are used for?
1 Like
No they thought it was gonna be another trench war and lost badly
Well it’s a waste of an ICBM. Nuclear tactical artillery and low yield bombs such as the B61 would be more appropriate. 300kt warheads from a Minuteman III is absolute overkill on infantry and armor.
The job of the ICBM Force is two fold. First, to destroy enemy (and honestly this means Russian) ICBMs not launched in the initial first strike. or if we strike first, to hit their ICBMs. Secondly, to destroy strategic military and civilian targets. But the first role is their primary role today.
No one has ever fought a nuclear war so the rules aren’t set in stone. But Russian and American tactical doctrine doesn’t involve the use of strategic warhead assets against land forces in the field on the European front.
The targeting profiles of ICBMs are pretty easy to figure out. The vast majority are aimed at other ICBMs.
Rules arent set in stone.
War all options are on the table. We have more than enough to go around
Depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re in command of the US military your goal is to minimize damage to CONUS as much as possible. In that situation you want to use your strategic assets to destroy the enemy’s strategic assets.
The problem is that even if we took out 80% of the Russian strategic nuclear forces the 20% remaining would basically destroy the US as a sovereign state.
That’s why you can’t fight a nuclear war. Same goes for the Russians. There’s no way to destroy the enemy’s nuclear force to a point where you could survive the second strike. That’s why it hasn’t happened. Yet.
IMO if it happens it’ll be caused by an accident.
