Why did the US turn away from strategies that worked in WWI and II?

Question

The US with its allies stopped massive armies bent on taking over the world

Yet, right after WWII we made a massive strategy change, basically just giving up any chance of really winning a larger war outright

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

All victims of this strategy change.

Could the US win a conventional war with China, who spends $70 billion a year on their Military and has 2,255,000 troops with 800k in reserves, with its strategy of no collateral damage ever, wars must be very short, any deaths at all is unthinkable, and it can never effect the US back home in any way?

Answer 1

Political correctness. It has ruined our country.

Answer 2

Yes, let's go back to those strategies! It all makes sense. During WWI, we used trenches all the time, that's brilliant! Let's build massive trenches to ensure a long standoff with our enemies, and also to ensure a massive loss of life one both sides, which was the case in practically every battle during that war. Or, do you mean we should go back to WWII, where the main strategy that worked was the German Blitzkrieg, which we then proceeded to copy and use against them later in the war?



Really, I'm confused and concerned at what you're saying here. What strategy are you talking about? The strategy that occurred when we didn't have to deal with guerrilla warfare, like the kind used in Vietnam and Iraq? How exactly do we use these strategies to combat those situations? Or when we had to deal with Afghanistan and fight against enemies in the mountains that knew the terrain far better and had a network of caves? Would a well placed tank or 2 make all the difference there? In Korea, China and the North Koreans literally threw thousands upon thousands of their people at the U.S., forcing us to stop our advance, where would the strategy be there?



I suppose I'm just confused because you haven't explained anything here at all. Do you realize that wars are fought differently against a variety of opponents who employ a variety of tactics? This is entirely confusing! You bring up the possibility of war with China, when the hell is that going to happen? What possible reason would China ever have for going to war with us? We're their biggest debtor, we owe them so much the country practically owns us financially. We also buy a great deal of what they have to sell. You may be bringing it up as a "what if" scenario, but it's the worst one I've ever seen. And your response to this terrible "what if" scenario is to say that we should no longer have a "no collateral damage ever" strategy? Would that somehow defeat the 2+ million troops with 800k in reserves? Besides that, this country has constantly been chastised for collateral damage it has caused, when did that suddenly disappear? And since when did we think that "any deaths at all is unthinkable"? Where did that come from? When did we start fighting with NERF weapons? Do the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq just spawn from nothing?



Seriously, take a long, hard look at what you're saying here, think it through, and understand that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Answer 3

The US can win a conventional war against China simply becuase of superior firepower and better combat doctrine. The Chinese know this, so to compensate for what they lack, they try to equalize it by sheer numbers. By the way, the People's Republic of China has 3,440,000 active troops and a further 1,200,000 in reserve status (call up mobilization within 48hours). Plus they have a paramilitary force of 4,500,000 plus, but these are considered second ecehlon-low quality troops.



The question to ponder against your hypothetical question is where to hold the decisive battlefield? Will the US have to invade mainland China or the other way around. That's insane and totally discounted. Korea? possibly. but basing it in the present political climate, highly unlikely either. Future combat areas between the two (we're still thinking conventional warfare) would most possibly occur in the the high seas. With 11 carrier battlegroups centred on a supercarrier, (with one battlegroup on built status) the Chinese will not even have a chance to get to first base, and the Chinese know it, so they're building their own nuke subs to complement their extensive air wings. They now have 2300 Fighters and Attackers and is the largest air force in Asia-Pacific region and the third largest in the world (after the USAF and the Russian Air Force). Their new navy the 250,000-man People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is organized into three major fleets: the North Sea Fleet headquartered at Qingdao, the East Sea Fleet headquartered at Ningbo, and the South Sea Fleet headquartered in Zhanjiang. Each fleet consists of a number of surface ship, submarine, naval air force, coastal defense, and marine units. These units are defensive in their combat doctrine, vs the USN's vastly superior ability to project a much powerful offensive force.



So in a really serious confrontattion, the US will still stay ahead and still win a conventional war, provided it is done in the high seas. However, it is highly unthinkable that in the heat of battle, both sides would agree not to use their nuke weapons. In war, anything is possible. But you might just as well forget in the possibility of collateral damage being minimized. Future wars would be an inferno such as the world have never seen before, simply because of far efficient killing machines of destruction.

Answer 4

Nice straw men you have there.

You have no understanding of what those wars were about or what you won in them.

Korea bought you a military base that give you access to the Manchurian peninsula if you need it. It also allows you to control the Korean Strait choke point of the China seas (Yellow and East).

It was not really necessary to cross the Yalu river and it was only done to test Soviet and Chinese reactions. China reacted instead of USSR but the Soviets would have reacted to protect Vladivostock if the Chinese had not pushed NATO back south of the Yalu river.



Vietnam was mostly about rubber supplies and when Dupont started producing enough synthetic rubber USA gave up Vietnam, but only after destroying the rubber plantations (defoliation program, agent orange herbicide)



The other wars have similar analysis for them. I have to admit the war for Afghanistan resources is questionable on a cost benefit basis and is likely not winnable.

Iraq was part of the plan to control oil reserves in the area. Iran is about ooil too.

Somalia/Djibouti is about naval power at the Suez. Panama is a canal connecting Atlantic and Pacific,



If you start looking you will find every war USA fights either gives economic resources or allows strategic control over shipping routes.



You ask if USA could win a ground war against China.

I doubt it.

I doubt if USA would even try fighting a ground war against China.

It would make more sense to fight a naval and air war instead. USA controls all of the shipping lanes China needs to survive.



I think a far more challenging question is if USA could survive an economic war with China.

Answer 5

In each of your examples it seems the problem isn't necessarily one of military strategy, it's one of war aims, which governs military strategy. In Korea, the initial aim was to simply repel the North Korean invasion and protect the South, when that went well, the aim shifted to conquest of the North. When the Chinese intervened and WWI-like stalemate ensued, the aim shifted again to basically status quo antebellum, which was achieved.



In Vietnam the war aim was to simply protect the South from the VC insurgency and from NVA operations. If the aim had been shifted to conquest of the North, the strategy would have had to change.



In Iraq, the country was taken over and the war aim has been to protect the government and tamp down the insurgency and warfare between Shiites and Sunnis.



In Afghanistan, the war aim seems to be similar to that of Iraq, only there's not as much to work with there as there was in Iraq.



In each of the last three, winning the hearts and minds was essential, so naturally it was seen that civilian casualties would be counterproductive.

Answer 6

The strategies of the war college have changed and so have our generals. We were not alone !

Korea is different from the others similar at first to Berlin now there is nuclear capability, like Israel, Pakistan and India. Vietnam is not nor was Afghanistan nor Iraq. To the last question yes but that would mean another cold war mentality. The strategy for Afghanistan is a good one to fight terrorism on Islamic soil, eventually Pakistan will prevail.

Answer 7

The strategies of old world war can still work when major nations directly fight one another. The problem is that this scenario hasn't existed in the world in a long time. I've heard many people argue about rules of engagement and the lack of total war and the problems with the "hearts and minds" strategies. The problem is that nearly every critic is an individual who has never served in the military (certainly never in combat) and lacks an understanding of military strategy and the state of modern warfare. The parts of our military that still rely on the older methods (such as massive troop buildups) are the parts that are generally the least effective.

Answer 8

You realize it is a fact that we ( the USA) entered WWI with no fighter planes or planes for that matter?



I say this because your premise that strategies in used WWI and WWII is ridiculous because of how much our country's military and technology has changed. The air force didn't even exist until 1947, and this is not to mention that nuclear weapons didn't come into play until the last year of the WWII. Computer no longer means a group of100 woman doing parallel mathematics by hand. Things change.



Conventional warfare will never happen again. If China wants to hurt us, they will take our money away, blow up pipelines, and turn our power off by hacking into the electrical gird.



One hacker can do in seconds what an army of thousands would take weeks.

Answer 9

Well recent conflicts have not been conventional wars like WWI and WWII. Also you realize, wars can not be very short due to the fact that after you win, you can't just win. Also, Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors are paid to fight for the United States and die if necessary. Yes its horrible when someone has to look the guys mother or wife in the eye and say that their son or daughter has died. Finally, war always affect the home country.



Key point number two is that we are currently in what we call fifth generation warfare. In fifth generation warfare, the key targets are key hostile personnel and Equipment. Now because of targeting key personal people will die.

Answer 10

The threats, and thus the goals, were entirely different in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan than in WWI and WWII. Sort of obvious, I would think, since the first W in WWI and WWII stands for "world."



We wouldn't fight a conventional war with China, so your question is moot. We have been on opposite sides from China in two wars already (Korea and Vietnam) without being directly involved in a war with them, and neither triggered a direct war with China. But if for the sake of argument, such a war were to begin, it would quickly go nuclear, which would prevent it from happening in the first place for the same reason we never directly fought a war with the Soviet Union despite years of conflict.

Answer 11

the strategy in Afgan doesnt make any sense. This is what happened you have a planned attack on the US by the govt so the people can approve the war in Afgan. The reason that the govt started this war is to control and suck the money out of its people. how is it that the govt didnt think about the economy suffering before they went to war?. The US has the most powerful millitary in the world why cant we find Osama and co?

Answer 12

Fighting a standing army is much different than fighting a guerrilla insurgency. By the way, The US spent 550 billion on the military in 2008, almost ten times China's military budget for last year. Could the US invade China? sure, but it would be a epic failure. Could China invade the US? Hell No!

You are trying to "spin" the facts, and doing a poor job of it.

Answer 13

Eisenhower complained about this.



He said that the U.S. was no longer run by the Government but by a shadowy council of corporate robber barons.



The way we fought in Korea was designed to appease Truman's buddies in the Chinese Communist party (he fought to get them funding equal to what was being provided to the Chinese nationalists who stood by us in WWII).



The way we fought in Viet Nam was designed (successfully) to misappropriate the trillions of dollars which had been laid up for Lunar industrialization and sub-aquatic habitats.



And FYI, China has 200,000,000 military age people and can field them all in short order.



The more unsettling fact is that with a Muslim population approaching 1.5 billion, Any emerging cailif would sit atop an even larger army.



The wars of the past were symmetric, large nation against large nation, big army against big army, big navy against big navy.



Russia has said they intend to embrace the Islamofacists' tactics of asymmetrical warfare, where a few people strike deep into the heart of a noncombatant target environment.



The big problem with our strategists is that they fail to use the resources at their disposal and strategize proactively . . .



No, instead, they REact AFTER we have loost troops and equipment and emboldened the enemy.



It seems that the inmates are running the asylum.



-----



Wrenched:



Really?



Didn't you know that most of WWII was fought house-to-house?



Did you not know that was the reason for the Sturmgewehr and all the assault rifles which followed it?



Didn't you know that was why the U.S. Military switched from .30-06 to .308? (I know, they switched to .223 later, but that was to enrich the robber barons who owned Stoner)



________



Betters -



Good point but bad facts.



We had lots of planes when we entered WWI. It's just that the Germans had better ones, because we hadn't seen a need to focus on warplanes as they had. The whole entry of the airplane into combat was originally for transport and reconnaissance, but then pilots discovered they could shoot at each other and drop bombs on ground troops... Soon came machinegun mounts, which were disastrous at first because they shot off the propellers, and they had to be adjusted to fire on a timed delay.



Again, this was a case of our strategists failing to think proactively.

Answer 14

The US entered in WWI & WWII just before ending, in the time were british, french and nazis were all exhausted, and even if it had won them in the properly way, Korea, Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan are places that did NOT demanded any US or international intervention, in contrast with the invaded France and UK.



Better go away from were you are not called out.



Do you consider China the same as Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan.....Kosovo?

Answer 15

We actually did use a strategy used in WWII... ignoring important intelligence. We ignored reports that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor and we ignored reports that we were going to be attacked by al-Qaeda from about 15 different sources and countries.

Answer 16

I'm going to answer only your first question, the second is so malformed that it would be speculative to think one knew what you meant by it.



The strategies from the Great Wars would not work in the house to house, building to building, hand to hand combat we find ourselves involved in these days. Strategies needed to change to meet the challenges of a new style of war.

Answer 17

...there's nothing "conventional" about any conflict that would develop between China and the U.S. The U.S. has (right now) on patrol several SSBN's "somewhere" in the Worlds Oceans... this fleet of SSBN's (if tasked) could put China (and) any other Nation to "sleep" in about 12 minuets.............

Answer 18

Nukes, the great equalizer.



Two nuclear powers going at it assures massive destruction for both and possibly the world.



Thus today the super powers fight our wars through lessor powers by supplying them with arms and a cause.



http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

Arms trade is big business.

Based on a 2006 congressional study that is down-loadable from the above site.



.

Answer 19

Hahahah. You are sad and funny at the same time.



"No collateral damage ever"???



Hiroshima: 140,000 civilians killed

Nagasaki: 80,000 civilians killed

Cambodia: 600,000 civilians killed

Japan firebombings 500,000 civilians killed

May Lai: 500 civilians killed

The US bombs weddings, commercial flights and embassies. Where on Earth do you see this "no collateral damage ever" policy?

Answer 20

because Politicians thought they could run wars better than the Fighters that actually knew how to win.

Answer 21

yep, political correctness. it doing to this country what no army has been able to do.

Answer 22

They caught on.



And all the wars thereafter were unnecessary - used only to disseminate the US dollar.

Answer 23

I'm not sure you *completely* understand the totality of the U.S. military doctrine.

Answer 24

Because those are winning strategies, liberals want US to lose.

Answer 25

Because we invented the UN yay. We haven't won a war since.

Answer 26

Because the world has changed.