The End of an era: The last US Army tanks leave Germany

[timmy]

Here is an interesting recent article regarding the presence of Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 38689.aspx

Now Skyman, before I accept your brush-off regarding the possibility of a naval confrontation between India and China, I would like you to give me your analysis of "The String of Pearls." No doubt, you are already well versed on this subject, but perhaps this will stir your memory:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Harsh_V_-Pant/3353

[xl_target]

And lastly, my small two bits, it doesnt matter the kind of training you have, what your numbers are etc etc. every once in a while, having your back to a wall, desperation, profound belief in the cause you are fighting for etc will make a mish mash of any and all superiority enjoyed by the adversary. So that special something is not to be found in the training manuals

Somewhat true but I'm not sure I can fully agree with that. Being a warrior is an art (sure there is some science thrown in). It takes years of individual sacrifice and countless hours of training. A warrior can be an awesome individual fighter.
Soldiering is a science today. Trained soldiers who react instinctively to a series of commands, acting en masse can defeat warriors every time. They can be trained to do that in a very short time and they don't have to have awesome physiques. They can just be ordinary men. Of course the level of the training and the tools they are given to use will make a difference as to how many individual warriors they can defeat and how quickly.

Take a look at the video clip below.

On one side you have young American volunteers. Most US soldiers sign up for a small number of years. Many leave the service after that. This is how you sign up, the first digit is the number of active duty years (or active drill if you join the reserves) you must put in and the second digit is the number of Inactive Ready Reserve years you must put in: 2X6, 3X5, 4X4, 6X2. So if you have two years active duty, you will owe six years of reserve duty (you can be called back in if they need you). No expense is spared in the training of the soldiers and it doesn't matter what color you are or what your social status, you will get the same training as the other soldiers. So if you come from a politically connected or super rich family, you will get the same training as the farm boy from Mississippi or the wanna be gangster from inner city America. You will be taught to act as a team and you will be taught to support the guy next to you and he will support you. When your enlistment is up, most leave the service. Most of these guys were in high school just a few years ago. They are young, inexperienced and have never been in combat before. Like all armies, they have a professional officer corps and a cadre of professional NCO's.

On the other side, you have full time soldiers. I doubt the Republican guards had any conscripts. Conscripts went to other units. These guys are blooded combat veterans. They have seen the elephant in the previous Iran-Iraq war and they are the victors of the short Kuwaiti campaign. These guys also have professional Officer corps and a cadre of NCO's. They are probably all long service veterans. I don't know if the officers have come up through the service or if they have been appointed because they are someone's uncle or cousin so we will assume they are all long serving officers.

The meet in the desert, one side is entrenched, dug in, whatever, in a defensive position and the other side stumbles on them. Both sides are surprised. Check out what happens when they meet.

[youtube][/youtube]

Food for thought:
Lets forget about air superiority temporarily as there was no air cover for this action and many other actions during the campaign. Lets just consider this small battle.
Why is there such a difference in casualties on the two sides? Usually the attacking side takes more casualties than the defensive side. Why did the American side make it look so easy. It can't be the commitment or the personal conviction of the two sides. The Republican Guards were committed. They fought practically to the last man. Even the dismounted Iraqi soldiers fought to the end. There was no question about their bravery. What happened? Is the difference that on one side even common soldiers are allowed to take initiative and that the other side is rigid and does not allow individual initiative? Is the difference in the equipment? I'm not sure but there is a huge disparity in the ability of the units, throughout the campaign. The British had similar results? Why was the second Gulf War so similar in result?

[Skyman]

China has two areas they are desperately lacking in - Energy Security and technological dominance.

Their revenues rely largely on the exports.To keep this safe, they need to police the seas around the South China sea and the Indian peninsula.However, their aggressive nature means they want to control the seas rather than just safeguard their interests.This leads to friction with other countries, especially us.The Indians are becoming increasingly isolated in the area.More and more nations have been pulled into their orbit.They use their resources to finance and build infrastructure projects all around the world, notably South Asia and Africa.They build roads,ports and airports in Africa in exchange for Oil.They did the same around the Indian Ocean to have strategic launching pads, if needed.They can effectively blockade us or any of the smaller countries that rub them the wrong way.For instance, they control most of the rare earth metal supplies in the world, and stopped supply to Japan over an island dispute.Without the rare earths, which are used in phones and even missile systems, Japan's electronics industry would be crippled.And it came close to that.

The ring of Chinese funded ports around us seem innocent now.If needed, they can serve as bases.You can be sure China will do a lot of arm twisting to get what they need.In the North, they aid Pakistan in many ways.In the south, they will soon start " Running " into Indian ships and start blowing fishermen up.The Indo-Us partnership is a worrying thing for them.By pulling as many countries into their influence as possible, they will effectively control South Asia's resources and people.Don't forget, they are eying Afghan mineral wealth as well.The only ones who can stand up to them - India, has squandered advantages and is now almost isolated in the region.We have not secured foreign mineral wealth, nor their loyalty in these years.In fact, no one needs us much.

Earlier, the Chinese image was tarnished, and the nations sought India.Today, the advantages China offers make the bitterness of their bossy policies tolerable.

Soon, no one will be able to compete with the Chinese.Be it electronics or textiles, they will make it cheaper and better.

[xl_target]

Part of the reason that India is in the position it is in is that India has never really sought to be expansionist. India's goals have often been to secure its borders and be left alone probably because of the centuries of foreign invasion that have bedeviled the subcontinent.

As far as Korea goes, it is interesting to look at the last Korean war and hope that the same mistakes won't be made again.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Skyman]

To be frank, i believe we were too lazy to even secure the needed.Heck, refusal to secure friendships is why we are odds with Pakistan in the first place.

[xl_target]

To be frank, i believe we were too lazy to even secure the needed.

That is quite possible.

Heck, refusal to secure friendships is why we are odds with Pakistan in the first place.

No Sir, You are totally incorrect here.
Study the causes of every conflict India has had with Pakistan and you will see that what you are saying is not true.
I don't want to bring current day politics to this thread but there is plenty of information, even on the net, to tell you that.

[Skyman]

Nehru failed to aggressively pursue friendly relations with Pak,which may have changed the course of history.The reason for Pakistan's failure however, is because it was created as a nation for the muslims and not on other ideals such as justice or secularism.

[xl_target]

Remember that it was Mountbatten to whom the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir appealed to when Insurgents flooded his country.
Mountbatten, who was the last Viceroy of India and then Governer General of India, sent his troops to clear Kashmir.
It was hard then to pursue an active friendship with an entity who resorts to what is today called terrorism to achieve its political goals but lets not go there. While historical in nature, we are straying into places that it is not desirable to go to on this forum.
We have Pakistani members on this forum, who we welcome and enjoy talking to and we would like to keep it that way. Let us not hold each other accountable for what previous generations did.

[Skyman]

While historical in nature, we are straying into places that it is not desirable to go to on this forum.

Agreed, let us lay the matter to rest.

[bennedose]

My understanding is that the DPRK has a large army, but it is not in very good shape regarding maintenance and upkeep. I'm not sure what they have regarding conventional strength, such as tanks and the like, but they sit within shelling distance of Seoul. If something breaks out, it seems to me it will very likely be quite messy. The Chinese have been feeding this wildlife cookies all along, and what they will do with a war on their shoulder is another big question mark.

The nukes are from Pakistan, given in exchange for missiles.

[Skyman]

Which missiles?

[bennedose]

NoKo No Dong = Pakistan's Ghauri missile
http://carnegieendowment.org/pdf/npp/Pa ... 0Korea.pdf

[Skyman]

Thanks.