So what happens if the US is needed in Iraq, Iran, N. Korea and back home?

[StuartD]

If everything plays out as some people expect... could the US get spread too thin?? How much can the US handle all at one time and not be vulnerable?

[teksonline]

we already are spread too thin but we are not just stationed in USA, so no need to worry

[Sly]

In which scenario would our military be needed at home? Are you guys up North sick of us taking your celebrities?

[Beejeebers]

Our celebrities will never get tired of taking your money and jobs.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Sly

In which scenario would our military be needed at home? Are you guys up North sick of us taking your celebrities?

Well, let's say that the US ends up in Iraq, Iran and N. Korea... leaving very little at home.

I'm not a strategist but it seems to me that if I was one of those countries, or a 3rd party who wishes harm to the US.... that would make for a prime moment of attack.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by StuartD

Well, let's say that the US ends up in Iraq, Iran and N. Korea... leaving very little at home.

I'm not a strategist but it seems to me that if I was one of those countries, or a 3rd party who wishes harm to the US.... that would make for a prime moment of attack.

Well, maybe. I don't see either of those 3 doing much to our soil though. And if anything happens with Iran and North Korea I doubt we would be the only ones fighting, those two have the world on alert right now.

[AtlantisCash]

us won't stop i thing, because everybody knows that fucking big middle east or great Middle east Project...

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Sly

Well, maybe. I don't see either of those 3 doing much to our soil though. And if anything happens with Iran and North Korea I doubt we would be the only ones fighting, those two have the world on alert right now.

That's for sure, Japan's just itching... but still, I think that with the whole "war on terror" thing going on, there are small'ish groups just waiting for the chance to do some damage to the US.

I just think that the US being out over seas so much just leaves a vulnerability that can't be ignored.

[pussyluver]

Perhaps there are some secret weapons?

At some point the President would have to exercise the nuclear option. Depends on what China and Russia do.

The attack your thinking of would be along the lines of a terrorist attack I assume. A full out nuclear war could only be with Russia or China.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by StuartD

That's for sure, Japan's just itching... but still, I think that with the whole "war on terror" thing going on, there are small'ish groups just waiting for the chance to do some damage to the US.

I just think that the US being out over seas so much just leaves a vulnerability that can't be ignored.

Which I would assume is why we now have a Department of Homeland Security. :-) I'm sure them and the CIA are busy as fuck these days.

[WarChild]

With the US already based in Iraq and South Korea, nothing suggests there would be any need for boots on the ground in either North Korea or Iran. Think airstrikes not invasion.

[sumphatpimp]

conscription in your county fool

[AmateurFlix]

they'd either introduce the draft or pull out of areas that aren't of immediate importance for defense such as Iraq and move the troops elsewhere - most likely the latter

[Mr. Soul]

There's no way our military would let the administration start two more wars. They've already told them no to Iran. Let alone Iran AND North Korea. Taking on those two countries simultaneously would be impossible, without Russia and/or China fighting alongside us, which will never happen. The neo-cons would love to go to war with Iran. If you think Bush's sudden "diplomacy" has arrived because he learned something, you're kidding yourself. The military brass has more power in this country than some realize, and they know that fighting Iran would be stupid... that's why they'll letting Israel start the Iran war.

That being said, if we do let Israel pull us into a war with Iran right now, we would need a full military draft to even attempt to control the ground.

I know, people who watch Fox will say, 'we don't need ground troops in Iran, we'll just bomb them back to the stone age'. That's also what the stupid people said when we started bombing Vietnam. It doesn't work that way against a country with solid air defenses, especially ones with difficult topography, and Iran has both. Ask any militart commander, you need ground support.

Originally Posted by Sly

In which scenario would our military be needed at home? Are you guys up North sick of us taking your celebrities?

Civil disorder. Which would no doubt be out of control if this administration got us into two more major wars. I know you're young, but watch some documentaries about America during the Vietnam war. We need troops at home to kill dissidents.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by StuartD

Well, let's say that the US ends up in Iraq, Iran and N. Korea... leaving very little at home.

I'm not a strategist but it seems to me that if I was one of those countries, or a 3rd party who wishes harm to the US.... that would make for a prime moment of attack.

uh, we're not canada.
If someone attacked the US, 1/2 the population would be killing the invader while the other half would be running to the millitary bases for more ammo.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

they'd either introduce the draft or pull out of areas that aren't of immediate importance for defense such as Iraq and move the troops elsewhere - most likely the latter

What? I thought us being in Iraq was the difference between peace and nuclear holocaust? You're not calling the vice president a liar, are you?

[BusterBunny]

israel is fighting everyone for us we are on vacation

[ColourMeHuman]

Totally agree! you sound very informed!

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

There's no way our military would let the administration start two more wars. They've already told them no to Iran. Let alone Iran AND North Korea. Taking on those two countries simultaneously would be impossible, without Russia and/or China fighting alongside us, which will never happen. The neo-cons would love to go to war with Iran. If you think Bush's sudden "diplomacy" has arrived because he learned something, you're kidding yourself. The military brass has more power in this country than some realize, and they know that fighting Iran would be stupid... that's why they'll letting Israel start the Iran war.

That being said, if we do let Israel pull us into a war with Iran right now, we would need a full military draft to even attempt to control the ground.

I know, people who watch Fox will say, 'we don't need ground troops in Iran, we'll just bomb them back to the stone age'. That's also what the stupid people said when we started bombing Vietnam. It doesn't work that way against a country with solid air defenses, especially ones with difficult topography, and Iran has both. Ask any militart commander, you need ground support.






Civil disorder. Which would no doubt be out of control if this administration got us into two more major wars. I know you're young, but watch some documentaries about America during the Vietnam war. We need troops at home to kill dissidents.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

uh, we're not canada.
If someone attacked the US, 1/2 the population would be killing the invader while the other half would be running to the millitary bases for more ammo.

Citizens attacking an invading army, isn't that what you call terrorism? Wouldn't we all be terrorists like Zakarias Moussaoui if we fought back against foriegn troops trying to control our country? Using your logic aren't we required to let them take our resources while throwing flowers at their feet?

Jokes aside, you give the average American way too much credit. Over half the country can't run anywhere. The only people who would be really capable of fighting back would be the right wing militias. Hard to say if they'd even fight, most of them are against the US government big time.

I don't think any invasion of the US would be possible, mainly because of our geographical advantage and our superior navy and air force, but who knows what would happen if we tried to fight two or three major wars simultaneously. The Germans had plans to take New York and Boston during WWI.

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

uh, we're not canada.
If someone attacked the US, 1/2 the population would be killing the invader while the other half would be running to the millitary bases for more ammo.

Most US citizens are armed.

[Doctor Dre]

This is where a conscription comes into play

[pussyluver]

Even Walmart sells ammunition in the US. Then their is K-Mart, Bass-Pro and many more.

[czarina]

Can we at this time properly handle multiple battle fronts?

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by StuartD

If everything plays out as some people expect... could the US get spread too thin?? How much can the US handle all at one time and not be vulnerable?

The US can draft probably a million or more.

[cellmoresmut]

We'll send George W to N Korea, Condoleeza to Iran, and Chaney to Iraq..

in otherwords we're screwed.

[Martin]

Draft time.

[AmateurFlix]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

The only people who would be really capable of fighting back would be the right wing militias.

... and hundreds of millions of others with firearms. Armed civilians here would greatly outnumber any possible invading force.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by StuartD

Well, let's say that the US ends up in Iraq, Iran and N. Korea... leaving very little at home.

I'm not a strategist but it seems to me that if I was one of those countries, or a 3rd party who wishes harm to the US.... that would make for a prime moment of attack.

the middle east is acting out right now becuase they asume we are spred to thin but more importantly because russia and china are not sining the same song . . n korea is upset because he's not the COI on the globe . . china will take care of NK and russia/china will eventually get sick of the crap in the mideast and we'll all do something . .

[blazi]

fuckin' politics!! everyone should just smoke a joint and fuck off with all the hate!! yes I'm a 70's child hehe

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

... and hundreds of millions of others with firearms. Armed civilians here would greatly outnumber any possible invading force.

So do people in Iraq, there are 20 million people there and something like 60% have an AK47. There's a big difference between being armed and knowing how to fight against a trained army. I don't know about you, but personally I wouldn't want to count on unorganized fat guys taking pot shots with hunting rifles to defend our country. We don't even have rocket launchers. Our guns wouldn't do shit against tanks and armoured troop carriers.

[NickB.]

US will get help rather not see war at all though

[NickB.]

US will get help rather not see war at all though

[MattK]

US Military will use Nukes and/or Draft in the next few years

[AmateurFlix]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

So do people in Iraq, there are 20 million people there and something like 60% have an AK47. There's a big difference between being armed and knowing how to fight against a trained army. I don't know about you, but personally I wouldn't want to count on unorganized fat guys taking pot shots with hunting rifles to defend our country. We don't even have rocket launchers. Our guns wouldn't do shit against tanks and armoured troop carriers.

well the last time I checked our country was remarkably unsuccessful in controlling Iraq, and a good number of the population there did NOT support the ruling government at the time of the invasion and pretty much let our troops in... you're comparing apples and oranges.

Most people here would not welcome an invading force, do support the government, and would be willing to defend the lands. "Fat guys taking pot shots with hunting rifles" would also be known as snipers if they were wearing a uniform

[Waveu6410]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

uh, we're not canada.
If someone attacked the US, 1/2 the population would be killing the invader while the other half would be running to the millitary bases for more ammo.

yes exactly.

we are a armed nation that would be really hard to invade.

to get us it would have to be nuclear.

[SoniqHost]

I believe I read that we have our military in some level in 130 countries across the world so I don't believe we are spread too thin, as for North Korea and Iran, North Korea doesn't want a war with the US, the want a payday from us, they can't afford a war. As for Iran, we can win a war against them without putting a boots on the ground and that is through a blockade, Iran imports the majority of its goods, they import 60% of their countries gasoline usage they need imports if we block imports from coming into to Iran it would only be a matter of months before their country would fall apart without US soldiers on the ground.

[jollyperv]

There's no fucking way they'd ever reinstate the military draft. It's just not going to happen.

[Mr. Blue]

First, I don't think it's all going to go to hell at once and people are jumping the gun on this WWIII thing. Also, because America went with few allies into Iraq, doesn't mean they'd be alone in other conflicts.

Global economy my friends...the health of the U.S. economy is vital to the world and there would come a point where other countries would either have to back the U.S. or possibly face financial ruin. China, Japan, Russia, etc, etc, etc, are all heavily invested in the USD and could face economic collapse if the U.S. really got fucked.

So, there would come a point where U.S. would have allies to handle these conflicts.

[cmos]

UK places their troops in the US to protect it ofcourse.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by cmos

UK places their troops in the US to protect it ofcourse.

DUH?? I'll let them know - they may have four to spare

[Jay_StandAhead]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

uh, we're not canada.
If someone attacked the US, 1/2 the population would be killing the invader while the other half would be running to the millitary bases for more ammo.

Which half would be looting?

[BrettJ]

There are something like 1.5 million Active Duty and Miltary Reservist. Something like 1.3 million national guard and reservist.

In the Middle East - Iraq , Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc... it's estimated that there were something like 170,000 soldiers (including 30,000 coalition forces). 25%+ of our forces were national guard and reservist. The sources of these numbers are this site http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iraq_orbat.htm and
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...03-ff04se.html

And we've actually been spread thinner over the years.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda06-02.cfm ...

Not to mention that During the Vietnam "war" we had 5 times as many people deployed overseas as we currently have - (yes we had a larger military by over 100%) but it still represented a relative increase of something like 20%
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda06-02.cfm

Could we take on Iran , Iraq, and North Korea at one time. There are currently something like 40,000 soldiers stationed in S. Korea. North Korea's forces are estimated at nearly 980,000. At the start of the first gulf war, Iraq had nearly the same number ... 950,000 which we knocked down to something like 350,000 which they rebuilt to 450,000 prior to the second conflict.

There is no telling what would come of an armed conflict with North Korea. I can only suspect it would not be good. But I would also venture a guesss that the support staff that is currently in the middle east for all of our other operations would reduce the amount of forces required for any battle with Iran.

the long and the short is that we could probably handle a 3 front battle while still maintaining an active prescence around the globe. would it be a little stressful... yeh probably. would the actions of one conflict ... effect the ability to act in the other theatres. yes, probably, especially if korea started to turn into another vietnam.

should we engage in any of them. my opinion. no.

should we allow north korea to run off the deep end. hell no. something has to be done. And they are a sovereign nation with a loose canon meglomaniac leader who doens't want to be told what to do by anybody ... but certainly not by the western world. What the answers is ... i don't know. And thank god, i'm not a foreign political advisor or a military strategist

[CamsLord]

Originally Posted by cmos

UK places their troops in the US to protect it ofcourse.

what he said

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Waveu6410

we are a armed nation that would be really hard to invade.

to get us it would have to be nuclear.

What's with the seige mentality man? Apart from a very small number of people who may have an interest in attacking the US, - who is interested in invading the US - or any other countries? (With the exception of a few possibles in the Middle East, tho they prefer to bomb their neighbors)

On the armed side... na, that is not the door-stopper or much of a defense against any determined "enemy". There are plenty more avenues even before any nuclear stuff - tho the damage and final result might as well be nuclear, tho doubt even "terrorists" would go there.

[Kimo]

the draft is still an option

[Webby]

Originally Posted by CamsLord

what he said

If you seriously think the UK or any other nation is going to assign a load of troops to specifically protect the US instead of dealing with their own shit and fighting any "foe" - just is not going to happen.

That's not to say there will not be alliances and common goals - but don't expect anyone to protect McDonald's

[JOHNNY_BUTTHOLES]

neither china nor south korea wants to see the n korean gov't toppled. they would get flooded with millions of starving refugees overnight. we need someone there in charge, and it looks like our best bet is Lil' Kim.

[grumpy]

Nobody "NEEDS" the US, they just think they are needed.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by jollyperv

There's no fucking way they'd ever reinstate the military draft. It's just not going to happen.

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. They're more than prepared to do it tomorrow if they choose to.

Our last military draft ended just over 30 years ago. That's not very long. We haven't had anything close to a major conflict since then. We haven't even had a medium sized conflict. Where do you think we'd get the troops if they decided to invade NK or Iran? Do you think they'd come flying out of Dick Cheney's ass?

[babsy]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Most US citizens are armed.

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

... and hundreds of millions of others with firearms. Armed civilians here would greatly outnumber any possible invading force.

Without sounding like I'm weighing in too much in on this topic of conversation, I just thought I'd point out that almost all the citizens in *Iraq* are armed, too. Lot of good it does them.

A bunch of untrained citizens with no structured leadership directing them is essentially no resistance at all to a military force, despite the romantic notion of a force of patriotic citizens standing up to the invading hordes. Sure, there'd be the occasional kill, but the invasionary forces would wise up and just level everything infront of them after the first few miles of having farmers take pot shots at them.