first off north korea has the second largest army in the world. China is first. And also the US could beat china with only a million soldiers against 20 million so why couldn't it beat Russia's soldiers. Second off, the Russian economy/military has been on a decline for the past 20 years. China could probably beat Europe. The European Union could beat Russia. And definitely the US could beat Russia. Russia's soldiers *were* as good as the Iraqi soldiers (now their all dead or prisoners). There was one battle against iraq. 100 US marines against 10,000 Iraqi soldiers. By the end of the battle almost all the Iraqis were dead and the marines only had a few casualties. Plus HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE PATRIOT MISSILE. The US is installing them everywhere. Russia will not be able to touch any country with an ICBM. Plus american missiles can shoot much farther than russian missiles. Also the US has missiles in turkey just a little bit away from Moscow. Moscow *did* have nukes in Cuba years ago. They don't now. Their missiles are thousands of miles away from the United States. Our missiles are in range to strike any Russian city within an hour.

PS. For all you hate Bush people out there. We aren't losing in Iraq. It's always been hard for every country to occupy another. Look at Russia and Afghanistan years ago. Not the 21st century war. The Afghanistani used Guerilla tactics to harass the Russian army. Russia was forced to leave because of that. On a convential type war the US could possibly take on almost the entire world. At this point. Unless Hillary becomes President. Then we wouldn't be able to beat Mexico

Photon, go back to the video games.


Actually I think that he has the right idea. Go after power plants, food storages, fuel facilities, and brutal winter will finish the job. Of course it is an oversimplification and it takes a lot more to succeed in a war, but his scenario is part of a big picture.

And don't forget the roving death squads.  "...finish the job"?  What job, of genocid-ing the Russian people?  What kind of job is that, other than the sort that (rightfully) lands you in prison or at the end of a rope?  Intentional targeting of civilians is illegal and immoral, and America does not fight that way.  Intentional targeting of civilian industry is of questionable legality and morality, and America ought not fight that way.  I refeer to the last guy who did it as "The Butcher of Belgrade" (and to think he ran as a presidential candidate as a Democrat--LOL, I'd think the leftists would find that ironic, I know I would if I thought the Democratic Party actually cared about "the people" in the first place).  Thankfully, USAF is run by professional airmen who would never choose to fight an air campaign like that.  I think if we were forced to go destroy any country's food distribution network while I'm still in, I'd put in my retirement papers as soon as it started.

Here are some pertinent exerpts from AFPAM14-210  "USAF Target Intelligence Guide"

The whole document can be found online at

and in case that link doesn't show up, it's

*ttp://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/index.html

 

You're right, the pilots don't know every detail about their target, but they don't pick their targets.  It's the job of the other people in the targeting process to know.

 

1.7. The Target. The term target has several meanings and is used in various contexts. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 defines a target as: "a geographic area, complex, or installation planned for capture or destruction by military forces." The intelligence community definition is "a country, area, installation, agency, or person against which intelligence operations are directed." For targeting purposes, this definition must be expanded to include the contents of the area, complex, or installation (e. g., people, equipment, and, resources). Furthermore, capture or destruction must be expanded to include disruption, degradation, neutralization, and exploitation, commensurate with objectives and guidance.

 

1.7.1. Relationship to the Objective. A target must qualify as a military objective before it can become a legitimate object of military attack. In this context, military objectives include those objects that by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action, or whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. The key factor is whether the object contributes to the enemy's war fighting or war sustaining capability. Consequently, an identifiable military benefit or advantage should derive from the degradation, neutralization, destruction, capture, or disruption of the object. Not only does this concept preclude violations of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), but it also supports the principles of war by employing economy of force against valid military objectives.

 

-----

 

4.5.2. Law of Armed Conflict . The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) constitutes that part of inter-national law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities (see attachment 4). LOAC imposes restrictions on the types of weapons that may be employed and the targets against which weapons may be applied. The primary purpose of LOAC is to protect civilian populations as well as prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and shipwrecked. Two principles that form the foundation of LOAC are military necessity and proportionality. Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a military objective. The principle of proportionality serves as the fulcrum for balancing military necessity and unnecessary suffering to the civilian population. Therefore, combat forces must attempt to minimize collateral damage. These two principles are woven through-out almost the entire LOAC and understanding these will enable personnel to understand what is and is not lawful.

 

4.5.3. Rules of Engagement (ROE) . ROEs, as defined by JP 1-02, are "directives... which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." In other words, ROEs are guidelines that we impose upon ourselves. For example, during the Korean war theater commanders placed a five mile no- strike target area below the North Korean and Chinese border. The reason for this was to try to prevent drawing China into the war. During the Gulf War, one restriction was that damage to the Iraqi economy and its capacity for postwar recovery would be limited. This rule was put into effect to keep Iraq as a viable nation, thus furthering the national objective of promoting regional stability. It is the targeteer's responsibility to weigh target nominations against the ROEs and to request exemptions if certain targets are deemed vital enough to the campaign.

 

Due to all of the possible interpretations of LOAC and ROE, it is essential that targeteers involve the Judge Advocate

Keeping to a current affairs topic of late, Kremlin is now disclosing it's intent to operate at least 10x more long-range strategic aviation patrols, than in the previous recent months. 

 

Did anyone else miss this latest report from the Kremlin?

 

Strategic patrols?

 

Nuclear armed??  What else is strategic??  Oh, cough, they may say they are um, not nuclear armed, but then you can't say they are "STRATEGIC PATROLS".  Can't have it both way, stupid.

 

So, this is a no brainer...  NATO and Japan/Australia needs to call Kremlin on this one and call them soon.

 

Either demand Kremlin change the official designation of the flights so that they are not called 'Strategic',  or if they are strategic, then demand that Russian military disclose ALL flight paths and flight specifics, 24hrs in advance, with stated relevant counterparts.

 

Otherwise, such 'strategic patrols' will be deemed under such a potential threat assessment and countered under much more aggressive scrutiny.  As is only natural...

Here are some pertinent exerpts from AFPAM14-210  "USAF Target Intelligence Guide"

The whole document can be found online at

link...