- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: do you think it's possible to win a war without putting boots on the ground
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:21 pm to OysterPoBoy
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:21 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Is there a consensus on what Japan would have done if we dropped the bombs right after Pearl Harbor?
0
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:29 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
Japan surrendered before troops set foot on the mainland.
Terrible analogy.
Japan's navy was decimated, their army had been pushed back to the mainland after 3+ years of ground war and were sick and starving, an allied invasion was imminent and then the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima served as the coup de grace.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:36 pm to cincyykid
What kind of war and what objective? Your question is too general to be answerable. Here an example: If PROC attacked ROC and ROC (with a little help) sunk so many ships that PROC changed it's mind about invading, I would call that a win even though ROC put no "boots on the ground." GB held off Germany across the channel without putting boots on the ground of mainland Europe. That was pretty much a win even before D-Day. The US obtained a surrender of Japan without invading the Japanese mainland.
So while somthing like those examples would likely make up only a small minority of wars (or parts of wars), I think that, depending on the objective, like simply preventing an invasion, can be done without doing so.
So while somthing like those examples would likely make up only a small minority of wars (or parts of wars), I think that, depending on the objective, like simply preventing an invasion, can be done without doing so.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:45 pm to TheArrogantCorndog
quote:
Bombs on the ground... see Japan
Technically those bombs never touched the ground. They detonated approximately 1600 ft above ground.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:54 pm to cincyykid
No. We tried this during the first war in Iraq. We ran out of targets to bomb before we could encourage Iraq to capitulate and withdraw from Kuwait.
The senior military officials feared a ground war and gave the bombing campaign every opportunity to solve the problem, even as the negative press of mounting "collateral damage" began to risk an erosion of public will.
In the end, it was Schwarzkopf's left hook that was decisive.
Precision guided bombs play a big role and make for good TV, but they won't win a war.
The senior military officials feared a ground war and gave the bombing campaign every opportunity to solve the problem, even as the negative press of mounting "collateral damage" began to risk an erosion of public will.
In the end, it was Schwarzkopf's left hook that was decisive.
Precision guided bombs play a big role and make for good TV, but they won't win a war.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 7:54 pm to cincyykid
Sure, just wear sneakers
Posted on 8/4/16 at 8:03 pm to cincyykid
Yes.
A-bomb but then that will cause all other nations to launch theirs so yes it's possible to win a war and kill 90% of the world population without ever putting combatants on the ground.
A-bomb but then that will cause all other nations to launch theirs so yes it's possible to win a war and kill 90% of the world population without ever putting combatants on the ground.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 8:05 pm to Mung
quote:
Uh, we didn't have the bomb then
I hope you didn't fall for that Manhatten Project propaganda. We've had the technology to make the bomb since Roswell.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 8:12 pm to cincyykid
Of course not.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 8:43 pm to rmnldr
quote:
ISIS is losing badly already.
This is why they have been having so many attacks in Europe. ISIS is losing ground so they are attacking "soft spots" in order to give the perception they are still going strong.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 8:49 pm to cincyykid
Targeted assassination of key leaders can keep things tampered down. Maybe not win definitively, but keep the pot from getting out of control.
I realize this won't go well on this board, but that is precisely what Obama has been doing with drone attacks in the Middle East.
I realize this won't go well on this board, but that is precisely what Obama has been doing with drone attacks in the Middle East.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 8:54 pm to cincyykid
Long answer, no.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 9:33 pm to cincyykid
Cold War FTW
Posted on 8/4/16 at 9:42 pm to cincyykid
Depends on what type of enemy, location and whether or not you are going to minimize collateral damage. If minimizing civilian casualties is a priority, then saturation/carpet bombing isn't an option. If your fighting a Guerilla War in an urban environment, you're gunna have to flush them out, building by building.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 9:57 pm to tigersownall
quote:
Well in nam. Had we dropped an a bomb on Hanoi. I say they give up.
They did give up. Go read up on the Paris Peace Accords of 1973.
Two things made them give up.
1. Renewed heavy and sustained bombing of the North. Go read up on Operation Linebacker. This strategic bombing offensive devastated the North's ability to sustain their armies in the south and totally decimated the North's air defense.
2. The failure of the Easter Offensive against South Vietnam. The failure of this offensive proved the ARVN could defeat the NVA in a conventional campaign. The North was left unable to launch any major offensive operations following the abysmal failure of the Tet Offensive in 1968. Tet, in addition to completely Destroying the Viet Cong as an effective combat force, also left the NVA decimated to the point it took almost 4 years for them to rebuild enough of a force to once again go on the offensive. The failure of this new offensive in 1972, coupled with the bombing of the north which had totally destroyed by mid 72 the once formidable NVA air defenses made it clear to the North they could not win the war. Thus, they were left no other option that to agree to end the war.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 10:29 pm to cubsfan5150
There are some folks who just want to see the world burn. The only way you beat those types is to convince them that it is ok for them to lose, which won't happen. Consequently, we are in one war after another.
Posted on 8/4/16 at 10:29 pm to Tiger Ryno
Vaporize the enemy
Posted on 8/4/16 at 10:51 pm to cincyykid
Posted on 8/4/16 at 10:54 pm to cincyykid
quote:it worked in Japan in WW2 didn't it?
do you think it's possible to win a war without putting boots on the ground
Posted on 8/4/16 at 11:00 pm to OweO
quote:Fighting them on the battlefield & fighting the ideology are two very different things. The fact is "bombing them into submission" is a joke at this point. We (I say this lightly because I don't think the US should handle this situation alone) need to hit them financially. Take away the trade roots that they use to sell oil,weapons,drugs and other supply. When you eliminate the financial backing ISIS is a joke.
This is why they have been having so many attacks in Europe. ISIS is losing ground so they are attacking "soft spots" in order to give the perception they are still going strong.
As far is defeating the random attacks. That has more to do with nations wanting to share intel with one another. Which isn't as open as it probably should be.
This post was edited on 8/4/16 at 11:02 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News