OK I heard enough.  First of all for those of you who think one side will surprise the other you are gravely mistaken.   Both sides have spies and radar that will pickup any planes or ships leaving Turkey or Greece.  Both military are in the process of replacing alot of their 1960s equipment.  So one side just doesn't have the firepower to completely overrun the other.   Further Turkey cannot commit all their forces  to their boarders with Greece.  Every boarder Turkey has is hostile.
It wouldn't surprise me if their old friends the Kurds wouldn't take advantage of this opportunity. Also do you guys know what the terrain is like in Northern Greece.   During the winter most of those areas are hard to drive through and so you cannot afford the war to last very long.     How are you going to support your troops.  So lets say Turkey takes the islands.  Again how to you plan to support them.    Turkey doesn't have the naval power and again the greeks will know they are coming.   The Greek force in the North  is all armored divisions that just need to hold turkey from advancing.    Again army sidze and equipment won't matter because the terrain doesn't give you the advantage.  You can have a billion troops and you would still have to march single file.   I hope I didn't spoil everyones brain storming

Good post... I could respond with a quote from Clausewitz : "If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere.", but your post is basically true, a reality check.

 

However, I could add that in our times, war is no longer about the complete destruction of the enemy's army (as in Napoleon's time) or of a mustering of countries' economies and war potential against each other (as in WWI and II) but nowadays, we are more likely to see a conflict between two countries fought out by small groups of special forces troops or a small number of regular troops, not for conquest of a country but for an island or small piece of territory.

 

Occupation is no longer the ultimate objective since the world community would not stand for it (in the case of European countries bound by various treaties) and simply because the occupation would be too costly in any Risk/Reward scenario.

 

As a result, I think it is possible to reflect upon the capabilities of Greece and Turkey in a conflict (not an out and out WWII style combat). In such a scenario, air lift, special forces capability, reach of air and naval forces, would be the determining factors.

 

Power Projection, political will and military tech are thus the key factors in a small, local conflict which would be of limited duration (because of RoI --- a long battle would obviate whatever military gains could be had), high tech (both sides would attempt to use superior tech to gain and exploit an edge) and diplomatic, i.e. it would be fought as much in boardrooms (seeking political capital, approbation and legitimation and to 'spin' a victory) as on the battlefield.

OK I heard enough.  First of all for those of you who think one side will surprise the other you are gravely mistaken.   Both sides have spies and radar that will pickup any planes or ships leaving Turkey or Greece.  Both military are in the process of replacing alot of their 1960s equipment.  So one side just doesn't have the firepower to completely overrun the other.   Further Turkey cannot commit all their forces  to their boarders with Greece.  Every boarder Turkey has is hostile.
It wouldn't surprise me if their old friends the Kurds wouldn't take advantage of this opportunity. Also do you guys know what the terrain is like in Northern Greece.   During the winter most of those areas are hard to drive through and so you cannot afford the war to last very long.     How are you going to support your troops.  So lets say Turkey takes the islands.  Again how to you plan to support them.    Turkey doesn't have the naval power and again the greeks will know they are coming.   The Greek force in the North  is all armored divisions that just need to hold turkey from advancing.    Again army sidze and equipment won't matter because the terrain doesn't give you the advantage.  You can have a billion troops and you would still have to march single file.   I hope I didn't spoil everyones brain storming

Turkish troops have been fighting with terrorists in BIGGER mountains since 1980s and our army is one of the most experienced(actually the most) army in guerilla/mountain fighting

Time to put the nationalistic bs aside. The Indian and Pakistani militaries are by far the most experienced forces in the world in mountain fighting, and some countries (look at Sri Lanka and some countries in Africa) have been fighting guerillas a whole lot more than you guys. Look kane, the only difference between you and the Muslim extremists is where your allegiance lies. It is very dangerous to buy into everything your country says dude, every country has problems. Nationalism can be a dangerous thing (check out the CCP and the Chinese people)

It's not nationalism........I just told some facts,they may not be the best but faar more experienced than Greeks.Actually Greeks didn't get into any fight since WW2 and well.......they had conflict with us in Cyprus
I do know nationalism can be dangeorus,same goes for you....I've followed many of your posts and I can say you're a nationalist too

And well I'm actually a little on the left and a patriot and I love my races history.I'm not a 100% Turk myself, almost everybody living on Anatolian soil is a mixture of countless ethnicities

and allegiance to what?

Turkey.

um.....no thats not our ONLY difference from those Muslim extremists

No Kane, my point was that your allegiance to Turkey is as strong as the extremists allegiance to jihad. OK, look at the nationalism in your posts. You say Turkey is the most experienced military in the world at mountain fighting...yet Pakistan and India have had full scale wars in the mountains before and have had almost daily scuffles up there for a good 25 years or so. You say that country is the most experienced at guerilla warfare, yet countries like Sri Lanka have been involved in full scale guerilla war for years now. Before you start making crazy claims, take a look at the facts and see if you have a legit point, or if you are just speaking nationalistic bs. 

Turkish troops have been fighting in this guerilla/mountain style for about 27 years
How can you prove that Sri Lanka and Pakistani/Indian troops are better than us?I can not prove you that we are better either.

I'm just saying that our soldiers are among the top guys

Yes I'm a nationalist but I know the capabilities of Turkish army

What we lack?

We can't produce our own fighter

Our economy is not independant

We don't have our own assault rifle(we got the licence of M-4 and G3 thats what we produce)

We don't have our own MBT(it'll be ready in 2012)

We don't have long range missiles

And we do not use nuclear energy(Thats why our effect on global warming is 0.9% and USA is about 25%

 

Anyway you're a nationalist too and your claims are not supported

The years are similar,PKK began it's assaults from Northern Iraq and Southeast Turkey in 1980s

After first gulf war they gathered tens of thousands  men,in 1994 they were sacked from Turkish hakkari region(mountains and northern Iraq(secret operation in Iraq))

After the 2.gulf war thank to USA they gathered more men and began attacking civillians again