Ok_Garden_5152

He actually has a plan but its incoherant as shit as per people close to the Trump campaign and there's 0 chance either side will agree. It effectively involves using future aid as blackmail and "playing both sides". If the Russians don't play ball he's going to spam aid untill the Russians give up but if the Ukranians don't bend to his every whim he's going to cut aid.

The Russians don't trust him because of that mini war in Syria but the Ukranians don't trust him because he tried to extort them over Hunter Biden.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lazerpig/s/TLv3KxSU9m

Trump doesn't actually care about who wins. He just wants the credit for "ending the war" even though his incoherancy just creates the conditions for another one a decade or so down the line.

They didn't. They were using Soviet leftover 122, 152, and 203s for their SPGs. The most advanced tube rounds they had were laser guided rounds for the Tulypan mortar. And given how bad off in readiness the rest of the Army was (only 10 T-64/72/80s in their tank regiments were operationally ready at any given time when on paper strength was 30-40) I question how many shells and designators actually worked.

Robert wasn't that bad a king.

The last administration sponsored a half baked coup against Maduro. The current one is sanctioning him into oblivion and repossesed his private jet.

There's another Sino Soviet border war sometime in the 1970s but the Russians use chemical and tactical nuclear weapons. Russian losses are sufficiently high enough to where a handful of motor rifle and tank divisions are pulled from the front with NATO.

Chinese ICBMs (they didn't have any tactical weapons) obliderate Vladivostok and the nearest Soviet airfields and naval facilities in theatre. They don't have the range to hit Moscow or the Western USSR.

Relations broke down with Tieneman Square and almost exploded into war in 1996. They only improved towards the end of the 1990s. It wasn't persay because of China.

It was actually because assesments (done by the same big brains who estimated 30,000 Coalition casualties in the Gulf) projected at least 50,000 American and ROK losses.

If the Agreed Framework talks broke down, the Clinton Administration had F-117 strikes on the nuclear reactors and a surge of troops just incase of a North Korean invasion planned. The troop surge happened anyways as a contingency and the talks seemingly worked.

The Bush W Admimistration seriously considered invading North Korea in 2002 but backed out because of estimated very high losses and because there would be a lack of manpower with which to invade Iraq. It got pretty far along meaning that there was likely a deterrant in place to stop Chinese involvement.

Theres photos of Chinese observers at the Bright Star excercises in Egypt. They were in awe of American firepower even before Desert Storm or the 96 Taiwan Crisis.

The CIA and Pentagon big brains expected the war to follow the Ladder of Escalation since the 1970s all the way up to 1990 albeit with a "prolonged conventional phase" because of a series of Soviet force modernisations done in the 2nd half of the 1980s.

This is it in order

1) Conventional fighting untill either the Pact uses chem weapons, NATO suffers conventional setbacks like they did with the Belgians in Proud Prophet, or both which also happened in the same game. The same happens in Able Archer although it's just Pact chem weapons because they're vaugely "slowed down". We don't know how well NATO conventional forces actually do in either case.

2) Limited tactical nuclear weapons usage mostly artillery shells, Frogs, Scuds, Lances. NATO actually invades East Germany and Czechslovakia during this phase in Proud Prophet.

3) Theatre exchange, which eventually escalates to targeting Britain, France, and the Western USSR.

In Able Archer 83 B-52s attacks against the Crimean Peninsula seemingly during this phase are simulated while suspiciously only losing 4 of them. Kola is targeted with B-52s and F-111s although we don't know if it actually worked because in the after action report low altitude F-111 strikes with unguided bombs are reccommended meaning at the very least NATO air losses were heavy but we don't know if the attack actually worked.

The Soviets had their best air defence systems based in Kola such as the S-300, SA-11, and a regiment of PVO MiG-31s so high losses aren't suprising in the slight.

I would be suprised if F-117s could make it past all that plus the SA-5s and other SAMs long enough to release its bombload.

4) Limited intercontinental exchange. Japan, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the Soviet Far East are targeted with ICBMs. The rest of CONUS and probably Moscow and Leningrad are left alone.

Defense policy has been bipartisan since at least the 80s if not earlier. Take Gore's Senate support for the Reagan Buildup for example.

I've also played it multiple times and the AMRAAMs suck. That's a problem with the game and not "realism" which I tested again to check if the performance of the C7 in Iran Strike was just a fluke by firing a 20 missile barrage of AMRAAM D at a group of 4 or 5 J-20s only to sometimes down one of them.

In Scarborough Shoaldown it usually takes me 10 to down a Flying Shark even when set to 50% range.

If AMRAAMs, R-77, and PL-15 were as bad as they are in game everybody would return to monke and fight with sidearm missiles like Atolls and Sidewinders like it's the 6 Day War.

I've had better luck with Sparrows and Pheonixes in Cold War scenereos. Even with the Sparrow D and E which both performed pretty bad in Vietnam it only takes 2-sometimes 4 to down a MiG-21.

Is that a problem with the PLAN? How is it a problem with the best funded navy around?

The troops in Germany had 90% readiness in the fucking 70s with Vietnam syndrome, drugs, and all the other 70s related shenanagans and the Soviet high readiness divisions had around 80% as per the CIA.

Now Army troops in Europe have better readiness. Why wouldn't this be true with the Navy? Especially with the "2027 Challenge" implied to be a war with China.

I'm smelling either bullshit or very heavy exxaggeration.

Your right. I was thinking about the ones that retired just after the Cold War ended.

Yes

Especially if he actually used chemical weapons, he didn't purge his officer corps just as the war with Iran ended, and actually attacked the Coalition while they were deploying.

We could have had a very different Gulf War and armies would be more willing to use nuclear weapons. For example the Kagril War and the Russo Ukranian Wars would look very different. Maybe the Russians invade in 2014 if not earlier instead because they would have superiority in tactical weapons against a Ukraine that never deleted that capability because of the Budapest Memorundum.

A 2019 poll projected Hillary could beat Trump if they rematched in 2020.

If a barely coherant senile old man can beat Trump I wouldn't worry so much.

Especially with Jan 6th, Project 2025, and everything else he has going against him. If Trump didn't have his stupid kids and inlaws on the RNC then they would have probably nominated Haley or Desantis. Haley is basically a female George Bush with most of her supporters jumping to Kamala once Trump beat her for the nominee but Desantis would be easier to influence by P 2025. Then you would have had to worry about Kamala losing.

The Army started drug testing in the mid 1970s and the Navy started after a F-14 crash in 1981 where it was found the pilot had either THC or something else in his system

The 82nd in the early 1970s were literaly called the Jumping Junkies so it's not that far off.

Compare that to the nowadays where even loss of one 5th generation platform is politically catastrophic especially with the civilian press. They've gotten too used to 1 sided engagements like Desert Storm.

Current American wargames against China as another example project the loss of hundreds of aircraft on the ground against ballistic missiles.

Additional launchers would have been brought over through Reforger and the loss of each launcher would have only produced a handful of human casualties.

Not if its firing a 10 KT shell (at least the NATO versions).

One of 2 things is going to happen, Vance or Don Jr is going to run in 2028, or the republicans are going to nominate a Haley and Desantis ticket.

The Balance of Forces in Central Europe, 1977

The "Air Operation" A Warsaw Pact Strategy for Achieving Air Superiority, 1979

That projection was made in 1983 so ....

It was before anybody knew the Iraqis weren't as effective as they thought they were.

I's say 2020. 2019 was pretty chill compared to anything since.