NationStates

Lady Scylla wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I wouldn't try it. If they find out it's an automatic discharge

I wouldn't try it period. Not while Trump's in office. If he manages to not get us into another war, I will be surprised.

Gauthier wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You do know that most troops don't want to go to war because they've seen shit they don't want to put anyone though

There's not enjoying a conflict and there's trying to dodge the job description.

Thermodolia wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
I wouldn't try it period. Not while Trump's in office. If he manages to not get us into another war, I will be surprised.

Then I'm really stupid. I'm reenlisting, though this time with the Marines instead of the going back to the Army.

Uxupox wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Demolishing Iraqi forces. You mean the fact that the Iraqi military had severe loyalty issues and would often flee? Not much of a win there. There's a reason the first war was so bloody short.

Have you seen how he completely reformed his own staff and how he effectively used his logistical capacity during the engagements in the war? The guy is a genius.

He just didn't demolish the normal troops but also the Republican guard with what seemed at the time no effort.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:C-17s can't fit Abrams.

Then it's a good thing our military consists of more than just Abrams.

We've only 125 C-5s which can fit a 2 Abrams. We need to move 1,000 tanks but also their support kit (which is more than the tank). Our current airlift isn't sufficient. As I said previously we would be commuting units piecemeal and suffer extremely high losses for it.

That's 250 Abrams/trip. Eight hours in the air at cruising speed from New York to France. Are you telling me that we can't coordinate more than one round trip every 1.75 days for our C-5 fleet in times of trouble? Or that the necessary support kit either cannot fit in anything less than a C-5 or would take more than another 7 days?

Uxupox wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Demolishing Iraqi forces. You mean the fact that the Iraqi military had severe loyalty issues and would often flee? Not much of a win there. There's a reason the first war was so bloody short.

Have you seen how he completely reformed his own staff and how he effectively used his logistical capacity during the engagements in the war? The guy is a genius.

He just didn't demolish the normal troops but also the Republican guard with what seemed at the time no effort.

Gauthier wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You do know that most troops don't want to go to war because they've seen shit they don't want to put anyone though

There's not enjoying a conflict and there's trying to dodge the job description.

Thermodolia wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
I wouldn't try it period. Not while Trump's in office. If he manages to not get us into another war, I will be surprised.

Then I'm really stupid. I'm reenlisting, though this time with the Marines instead of the going back to the Army.

Uxupox wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Then I'm really stupid. I'm reenlisting, though this time with the Marines instead of the going back to the Army.

marines???????????????

Saiwania wrote:So the Peshmerga is on the verge of overrunning Raqqa, they are supposedly only 2 kilometers away. Really closing in from the north and east. Unfortunately it doesn't look like a ring of steel will surround their rotten city, no grand artillery barrages or massive displays of bombardment. But in due time it'll be stormed.

Thermodolia wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
I wouldn't try it period. Not while Trump's in office. If he manages to not get us into another war, I will be surprised.

Then I'm really stupid. I'm reenlisting, though this time with the Marines instead of the going back to the Army.

Uxupox wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Then I'm really stupid. I'm reenlisting, though this time with the Marines instead of the going back to the Army.

marines???????????????

The East Marches II wrote:2 to 1 odds with shit tanks (only 100 Leopard 2s and the rest cold war left over T-72 and T-55s) is bad but unlike the rest of Europe they believe and are willing to fight. Poland takes its defense seriously. They deserve a special exemption from my condemnation as do the British. They do work too especially with the two new carriers which will free up an American carrier.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Then I'm really stupid. I'm reenlisting, though this time with the Marines instead of the going back to the Army.

Traitor! You were supposed to bring balance to force, not destroy it

Thermodolia wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
marines???????????????

I saw this one day

The East Marches II wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Then it's a good thing our military consists of more than just Abrams.

That's 250 Abrams/trip. Eight hours in the air at cruising speed from New York to France. Are you telling me that we can't coordinate more than one round trip every 1.75 days for our C-5 fleet in times of trouble? Or that the necessary support kit either cannot fit in anything less than a C-5 or would take more than another 7 days?

Two weeks at a rough estimate. You have to include skrublys, trucks, etc. etc.

Movement by ship gets us just over 3 weeks. It's not much faster. That's too slow without enough troops from other NATO countries to hold the line.

Gauthier wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Because my state has been run by Republicans that are perhaps from the guck at the bottom of the barrel.

Oh right, they want to pass their own Dick Police Bill.

Uxupox wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I saw this one day

Honestly they have the best public perception. moto asf.

The East Marches II wrote:Two weeks at a rough estimate. You have to include skrublys, trucks, etc. etc.

Movement by ship gets us just over 3 weeks. It's not much faster. That's too slow without enough troops from other NATO countries to hold the line.

Napkiraly wrote:

Hittanryan wrote:Where? When?

The Pacific should be the primary one and sooner rather than later. It's good seeing that the Japanese are at least starting a slow build up and the ROK has generally maintained a solid defense capability for their country from what I can tell (someone correct me if I am wrong).

Thermodolia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Traitor! You were supposed to bring balance to force, not destroy it

I saw a moto commercial and had a freedom boner

Thermodolia wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
marines???????????????

I saw this one day

Napkiraly wrote:Not to mention basing them and prepping them up for operations. Not to mention potential losses due to hostile action as well. Ivan would be dumb to not try and insert spec ops behind the lines to harass Allied forces and maybe even start bringing some of those planes down.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:2 to 1 odds with shit tanks (only 100 Leopard 2s and the rest cold war left over T-72 and T-55s) is bad but unlike the rest of Europe they believe and are willing to fight. Poland takes its defense seriously. They deserve a special exemption from my condemnation as do the British. They do work too especially with the two new carriers which will free up an American carrier.

T-55s are no longer in service with Poland. They use primarily T-72s and an updated T-72 variant. And I said "Poland alone" for a reason. Greece has another 4-500 MBTs in service. Turkey has about the same. Romania about 200.