If D-Day was today

[breaker44]

I'm not certain who wrote it, but it wasn't me, tho I'm damn sure I wish I did.
If Normandy Happened Today
Good Morning. It is June 4, 1944. Welcome to The Mullings Cable Network's continuing coverage of: "Operation Overlord: What's Taking So Long?" I'm Rich Rundling. Let's go first to MCN's White House reporter, Greg Smith for the latest.
SMITH: Thank you, Rich. Hill Leaders have told MCN news that an invasion of Europe is, in their words, "very, very imminent." These sources, who have been privy to briefings by the Roosevelt War Cabinet, tell us that "the number of troops, the number of ships, and the sheer size of war materiel shipments" clearly point to an invasion, possibly within the next 24 hours. Rich?
RUNDLING: Thank you, Greg. Now to the War Department and our reporter there Jim Smith. Jim? What are your sources there saying about a possible attack point?
SMITH: Well, Rich. Advisors to General Marshall are hinting at a strike at Pas de Calais, perhaps as early as tomorrow. However we believe this might well be disinformation and the real point of attack will be at Normandy. We have learned that Ranger and Airborne elements have been, in effect, rehearsing for the kind of terrain they are likely to encounter on the Normandy beaches and that Airborne units might be dropped in as early as tonight.
RUNDLING: So, Winston Churchill's famous phrase: "We shall fight on the beaches..." now must be considered as a clearly coded message to the French Resistance. For more on invasion plans, let's switch to London and our MCN reporter Eric Smith. Eric what are you hearing about where these troops may be going and when they might be going there?
SMITH: Rich, as you can see, the weather here is not good. Military meteorologists have advised SHAEF Command to stand down for at least the next 24 hours. If we can zoom in on this map behind me, you can clearly see that the combination of time and tides is most favorable for only the next 48 hours for a landing in France. Senior advisors to General Eisenhower are aware of, and very concerned with, the reports of growing impatience among many Americans with the amount of time it has taken to mount this invasion.
RUNDLING: Indeed, many here are asking why it has taken two-and-a-half years from the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 to June 1944 to reach this point. Eric, if they can't go within that window, what are Eisenhower's options?
SMITH: No good ones, Rich. Intelligence officers here in Britain are worried that if this operation has to be delayed for as long as two weeks, word will almost certainly leak to the German high command allowing them to move their defensive forces from their current location at Pas de Calais to behind the Atlantic Wall above Normandy.
RUNDLING: That would be unfortunate. Let's turn now to our MCN military analyst retired General Theodore "Teddy" Smith, the famous "Senior Seńor of Santiago Bay." General, you helped design the invasion of Cuba in 1898 -- just 43 years ago -- during the Spanish-American war, what do you make of this?
SMITH: Well, Rich, I'll use this map to illustrate. Assuming our troops will try to cross these beaches here ... and ... here. And assault these cliffs... here, then they will have to be supported by a naval bombardment from... here. So, we expect the Hun is flying air reconnaissance and will bring to bear their air assets to disrupt any pre-invasion shelling as soon as Allied ships are detected in this area ... here.
RUNDLING: What about tanks, General - the Panzer Divisions of General Rommel?
SMITH: Rommel is almost certainly moving his Panzer Divisions behind the Atlantic Wall ... here ... for use in a counterattack if and when the Allied forces breach those lines.
RUNDLING: Now, to Christianne Smith on a satellite phone in the French countryside. Christianne, what can you tell us?
SMITH: Rich, there is a growing sense of apprehension here about 40 miles away from what we assume will be the point of attack on the beaches of Normandy either tomorrow or the next day. Mayor Jacques Capituler is with me. Mayor, tell our viewers how you feel about the coming invasion.
CAPITULER: We don't want to be liberated. We don't need to be liberated. The Germans have established a perfectly workable government, here. The Americans should go liberate someone else, somewhere else.
RUNDLING: The thorny issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage brought onto our living room screens from right there in France, Thank you Christianne. To ... where? Ok, to Edward Smith with the forces of General George Patton in Britain. Edward.
SMITH: Rich, I am here in Kent, England opposite the Pas de Calais just across the English Channel which, if the weather were better, you could see behind me. MCN can now confirm that the activity here in Kent, which has been named "Operation Fortitude" is, for want of a better phrase: A complete fake.
RUNDLING: Fake? Explain, please, for our viewers.
SMITH: MCN can now report that Patton has constructed, literally, a phony army here. The tanks are cardboard. The planes are rubber. The radio traffic is faked. Reports of troop movements are completely fabricated. This operation, clearly, is designed to fool the Germans in Europe and Americans back home into falsely believing that the attack -- which we now think will come tomorrow if the weather lets up -- will be aimed at Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.
RUNDLING: Excellent reporting, Edward. Joining me, now, in the studio is MCN's Senior Ethics Advisor Emma Smith. Emma? What does it mean to the American way of life when their very own government engages in this kind of deliberately false and misleading information?
SMITH: The academic community has been warning for years that the American government would too easily sacrifice the truth on the altar of some alleged short-term military so-called advantage. "If the people can't trust the word of their government," many of us are asking, "then what we are fighting for in the first place?"
RUNDLING: Thank you, Emma Smith. And good luck with your exciting new book: "The Soviet Experience; Success, Solidarity, and Stalin." We have received a few e-mails from viewers expressing discomfort with General Theodore Smith's use of a word to describe our German adversaries, which, in some minds, is derogatory. MCN apologizes for the use of the "H" word on our air.
So, there you have it. The Allied Expeditionary Forces will, in fact, invade Europe not at Pas de Calais as the American public had been lead to believe, but at Normandy. And, that attack will take place either tomorrow or the next day, depending upon the weather.
This is Rich Rundling, MCN News. Now back to Imus.

[EiZei]

I know this thread is a flamebait (and not even a very original one) but does'nt posting the same shit (and getting it locked ultimately) over and over again get tiresome? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Sputnik Monroe]

That was hilarious it's spot on. (eizei, you have to admit it's true, deep down you know it.)

You left out polls though. They would also include...

Reporter: We asked our viewers in a non scientific poll the following question, Has operation fortitude changed your opinion on the war?

Can you imagine a real war like world war two today though? The death toll during the Normandy invasion was over 6,000 dead. That was just one operation in the war. Today the American people have given up because of 1,600 dead over a three year period. Today's America and Europe never could have won the second world war. Westerners are very weak.

[Ares1978]

That was hilarious it's spot on. (eizei, you have to admit it's true, deep down you know it.)
It was just plain stupid. As an American might put it: "Swing and a miss."


Quote[/b] ] Today the American people have given up because of 1,600 dead over a three year period. Today's America and Europe never could have won the second world war. Westerners are very weak.
How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.

If the American people have given up, it's because of the official reason they are fighting, which happens to be the second lamest excuse ever used. Had somebody suggested 65 years ago that "an Iraq" should be invaded, he would have gotten the 1940's version of "Fuck off." Come on, how long didn't it take for the US to get involved when somebody like Hitler was on the loose?

[Daniel]

Quote[/b] ]Today's America and Europe never could have won the second world war.
Nah, we could if it was necessary  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
We had no choice but to take Europe back by force, Iraq however doesn't pose such a threat to us, so there's less acceptance of such a sacrifice.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[somebloke]

Flame Bait methinks.

Anyway how do you figure today's western world Not winning the second world war? Better tanks, equipment, training, aircraft...and nukes.

[harley 3 1185]

Come on, how long didn't it take for the US to get involved when somebody like Hitler was on the loose?
To be correct, two years, three months and six days officially. Of course, President Roosevelt did a great many things to assist the cause of freedom before Hitler declared war on the U.S.A., but the fact of the matter was that America never went to war with Germany and never had a desire to; Germany went to war with you, and lost.
The United States' greatest enemy had always been considered Japan, and her Governments and Military had planned accordingly. Roosevelt, however eager to bring Germany into the war, was unwilling to do so himself.
However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten, and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.

[Ares1978]

However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten,  and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.
Western Europe, and they sure did screw the rest over.

[EiZei]

That was hilarious it's spot on. (eizei, you have to admit it's true, deep down you know it.)
Assuming this was actually funny (which it is not) it has already been posted - twice.

If there had been proper oversight by the media back then we might have avoided such glorious moments like reducing Dresden to smouldering pile of rubble, letting off monsters who commited atrocious experiments in concentration camps, letting big corporations trade with the nazis or interning everybody with japanese ancestry. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif

Yeah, go ahead, just blame it all on media just like every other wacko.

[breaker44]

Harley, thanks.
I'm glad you saw the point.
-Breaker Out

[Daniel]

Quote[/b] ]Flame Bait methinks.
Oh sorry, didn't think it would be seen like that. Just used it as an example. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Homefry]

However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten, and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.
Western Europe, and they sure did screw the rest over.
I'd blame the Soviets on that one... not the west.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

[CAS] Daniel-
Quote[/b] ]Oh sorry, didn't think it would be seen like that. Just used it as an example.

I believe he was referring to the article.

Anyway whilst it might be an amusing conceit to imagine how various moments in history would have panned out had there been a global 24 hour news media (if you can call much of the inane waffle on 24 hour broadcasting services news), the Second World War is vastly different from any situation in the present which someone might seek to draw parrallels to.

Besides which, there were international news organisations in the second world war (notably the BBC) and once the war got underway they all became involved in broadcasting a greater or lesser degree of propaganda, misinformation and other services to the various governments(yes even such luminaries as George Orwell for the Allies! ). If a similar such situation really emerged today im sure they would come under immense pressure to do so again. (There is a case to be made that they have come under some such pressure over Iraq).

[b_ringer25]

Allied Forces (in order of entry into the war)


Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)


China 450m 1.3 million 1.8 million 3.1 million 9 million
Poland 35m 130,000 200,000 330,000 2.5million
U.K. 48m 400,000 300,000 700,000 60,000
France 42m 250,000 350,000 600,000 270,000
Australia 7m 30,000 40,000 70,000 --
India 360m 36,000 64,000 100,000 --
New Zealand 2m 10,000 20,000 30,000 --
So. Africa 10m 9,000 14,000 23,000 --
Canada 11m 42,000 50,000 92,000 --
Denmark 4m 2,000 ? ? 1,000
Norway 3m 10,000 ? ? 6,000
Belgium 8m 12,000 16,000 28,000 100,000
Holland 9m 14,000 7,000 21,000 250,000
Greece 7m 90,000 ? ? 400,000
Yugoslavia 15m 320,000 ? ? 1.3million
U.S.S.R. 194m 9 million 18 million 27 million 19 million
U.S.A. 129m 300,000 300,000 600,000 --

Yeah we give up with 1,600. Please don't get me started. You don't even know the US plan. This war isn't a 5 year plan. It is a 20 year plan. You think we are stopping at Iraq. I don't think so. We don't know which country but there are a couple more.

cough cough Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia. That is some that maybe next in the near future.

This war is not for oil.

[USSRsniper]

Todat World War Two will never happen.. if it does it will have more deaths... because on biological/nuclear/chemical warfare  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif Who would land soldiers on beach with  modern technology? Why people care more about casulties today, baceuse it possible to keep it low.

[EiZei]

Yeah we give up with 1,600. Please don't get me started. You don't even know the US plan. This war isn't a 5 year plan. It is a 20 year plan. You think we are stopping at Iraq. I don't think so.
It took less time to get western europe and japan up 'n running than some 3rd world shithole? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

Objection your honour. I would like it on the record that i think Iraq is a damned interesting place and a fine country (all things being relative). Its only the extreme fear of death or horrible mutilation that would stop me going on holiday there.

[Sputnik Monroe]

Quote[/b] ]If there had been proper oversight by the media back then we might have avoided such glorious moments like reducing Dresden to smouldering pile of rubble, letting off monsters who commited atrocious experiments in concentration camps, letting big corporations trade with the nazis or interning everybody with japanese ancestry.


1. If the media would have been able to convince the the citizens of the allied nations to prevent the Dresden bombing then I'm sure all of the strategic bombing campaign would have been deemed "inhumane" and aborted. If that were the case it could be argued that the allies may have lost the war. It doesn't even need to be argured the fact that thousands if not millions more of the allied nations would have died with out the bomber campaign.  Carpet bombing sure killed a hell of a lot of civilians but at the time there was no other way, they didn't have smart bombs. Despite the massive air campaign the German military industry managed to grow durring the entire war. Think about that for a moment, now imagine how German industry would of faired had it not been bombed day and night.

2. As to letting off monsters I agree with you on that one. There were quite a few bastards who got off scot free after the war, including nearly all of the Japanese war criminals. That was after the war though.

3. Letting big corporations trade with the nazis? This isn't a Michael Moore allegation is it?

4. Not every one of Japanese ancestry was interned. The internment of Japanese Americans only took place on the west coast.  Surprisingly enough, there was no internment camps in Hawaii.

   The whole internment thing came about be cause of an incident that happened in Hawaii where a Japanese pilot crash landed and was aided by a sympathizer. Were the internment camps just? No, but you have to keep in mind that at the time fear of invasion was high and many Japanese were very clanish. Couple that with the bigotry of the time and well you can see why it happened. Doesn't excuse it though. My biggest complaint about the internment camps was the fact that they took their homes and belonging away.


Quote[/b] ]If there had been proper oversight by the media back then...

     The media has no place in war planning or operations period. Sherman was right, the media are spies. Media oversight, pfft, sounds like disinformation and sabotage to me. Media oversight can only harm the war effort and prolong the conflict or even lead to defeat. Sorry but defeat is not a acceptable alternative.  


Quote[/b] ]Yeah, go ahead, just blame it all on media just like every other wacko.

   I'm not putting all the blame on the media. The citizens of the western nations are equally to blame, they are the ones who gobble the shit up.

   You go ahead though and blame the nasty military. Just like every other naive soft westerner.  


Quote[/b] ]How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.


   I compare it because if the west today can't cope with an "insignificant" skirmish like Iraq, then they sure as hell can't cope with a real war with a nation like North Korea.

How do I think the west would react? I'm sure they would place sanctions for over a decade which the offending nation would ignore, then a few nations would step up and go to war and promptly sue for peace after just one day of batte in which thousands of troops died.


Quote[/b] ]Flame Bait methinks.

Anyway how do you figure today's western world Not winning the second world war? Better tanks, equipment, training, aircraft...and nukes.


    It's not flame bait. It's an interesting discussion, how would the west deal with a real war in present times?

    As for better equipment, that's not the issue the issue is heart and fiber to see a struggle through to victory. The war in Iraq was lost partly because it was a "massive" blood bath that claimed the lives of 1,600 troops so far over 3 years. A conflict on the Korean peninsula could lead to 1,600 dead in one day. To me it appears the west would capitulate within a week if not less.


Quote[/b] ]It took less time to get western europe and japan up 'n running than some 3rd world shithole?

    It took longer than that. The Japanese and Europeans were indeed actually interested in moving forward though. Something the Iraqi's seem to have no interest in. It's up to them to decide when the bloodshed ends.

    Even though I'm pessimistic about the Iraqi people ever deciding to move on, I still strongly disagree with you referring to them as a third world shit hole. They have every opportunity to pull them selves up and become a productive nation.

[rjjr]

After reading this thread it's sad to say some of [US] throw casualty numbers around like their are no people behind each digit. However I do realize the point that some of you are trying to reach.

In my opinion the media does more harm than good to any war effort. They speculate over live television over possible attack plans and attack points and with less censorship even at times help the enemy spread their message to more people.

Although most either don't know or can't admit it, the media as a whole (not just specific reporters) like it when soldiers die. It helps thier ratings. Since Fallujah the number of American deaths have fallen and so has the coverage of the Iraq war. The only thing we ever hear about are bambings and Americans being wounded or killed.

At first I believed that that was all that happened in Iraq until I met a few soldiers who gave me a totally different perspective on the situation. You would they were talking about a completely different country than the news.

I probably got off topic their but felt it needed to be said.

[Sputnik Monroe]

rjjr you are a way better speaker than I. I suck at putting my feelings into print. I whole heartedly agree with every thing you said.

I don't mean to belittle the sacrifice of any of the dead service men and women of the coalition forces. Each one of them was person with a family and history, a life cut short.

Sadly lives are lost in war though. I try to look at it as only 1,600 have died in three years. When worded that way though it sounds incredibly callous and heartless. I'm just trying to make the comparison between the death toll from other wars in which 1,000 dead a day were not uncommon. In those wars the people of the west steeled them selves and fought on to victory, I don't think the west today could do that.

[breaker44]

bringer, Sputnik, Rjjr, I can definitely see from you point of view. Yeah, the war sucks, and whether you agree with it or not, the media is helping more to prolong the war, even if it is just in the hearts and minds of those in service and at home. That's the most important place anyway.
The thing that irks me is the complete ignorance to progress that the media HAS. I am an ROTC cadet and a journalism student, and I can say for sure that the media plays a huge role in the success or "failiure" of something.
Thanks for arguing this in a mature and factual manner.
-Breaker Out
(the west wouldn't capitulate, though...)

[Ares1978]

However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten,  and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.
Western Europe, and they sure did screw the rest over.
I'd blame the Soviets on that one... not the west.
How do you figure? Sure, the Soviets can be blamed as much as the nazis, but Americans let them do it. What's the point claiming that "Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe", when in fact they only did so for a very small part of it? Just start calling the part they fought and died for "Western Europe", instead of "Europe". It's more historically accurate that way.

[Ares1978]

Quote[/b] ]How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.


   I compare it because if the west today can't cope with an "insignificant" skirmish like Iraq, then they sure as hell can't cope with a real war with a nation like North Korea.  
It's not "can't", it's "won't". There's a good reason to not cope with that pathetic crusade, and it has nothing to do with the losses.

Example: Why didn't the US just cope with the losses from the WTC attack? After all, it was just 2,749 casualties.


b_ringer25, there is no plan.

[harley 3 1185]

Ares1978, it wasn't the "Americans" who let the Soviets ride rough-shod over Eastern Europe; the blame can be placed squarely on the broad shoulders of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored Prime Minister Churchill's repeated warnings about Soviet duplicity and chose instead to make sure that Nazi Germany was defeated by '45. Naturally Stalin didn't want America interfering in Eastern Europe, hence his repeated attempts over the years to discredit and shun Churchill, and consequently the British Empire in favour of America. Stalin never forgot that Churchill had tried to destroy communism back in 1919, and made every attempt to ignore him through the latter stages of World War Two, setting the stage for Roosevelt to blithely ignore the fact that the Soviet Union would throw away every agreement ever made, in favour of a two power standard after the fighting ended. The "Cold War" ensued.

[Ares1978]

Ares1978, it wasn't the "Americans" who let the Soviets ride rough-shod over Eastern Europe; the blame can be placed squarely on the broad shoulders of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored Prime Minister Churchill's repeated warnings about Soviet duplicity and chose instead to make sure that Nazi Germany was defeated by '45.  Naturally Stalin didn't want America interfering in Eastern Europe, hence his repeated attempts over the years to discredit and shun Churchill, and consequently the British Empire in favour of America.  Stalin never forgot that Churchill had tried to destroy communism back in 1919, and made every attempt to ignore him through the latter stages of World War Two, setting the stage for Roosevelt to blithely ignore the fact that the Soviet Union would throw away every agreement ever made, in favour of a two power standard after the fighting ended.  The "Cold War" ensued.
I do know the reasons why they let it happen, but I won't accept any false claims.

[harley 3 1185]

I'm kinda confused by what you mean by "False Claims". And out of interest (this is not for any flaming purpose), what Nationality are you? The Rowan Atkinson (who studied at my old school) avatar suggest British-and if so have you ever visited America?

[EiZei]

Quote[/b] ]
1. If the media would have been able to convince the the citizens of the allied nations to prevent the Dresden bombing then I'm sure all of the strategic bombing campaign would have been deemed "inhumane" and aborted. If that were the case it could be argued that the allies may have lost the war. It doesn't even need to be argured the fact that thousands if not millions more of the allied nations would have died with out the bomber campaign. Carpet bombing sure killed a hell of a lot of civilians but at the time there was no other way, they didn't have smart bombs. Despite the massive air campaign the German military industry managed to grow durring the entire war. Think about that for a moment, now imagine how German industry would of faired had it not been bombed day and night.

Well, we seem to have different ideas on when it is justified to burn people to death so ill leave it to that.


Quote[/b] ]
3. Letting big corporations trade with the nazis? This isn't a Michael Moore allegation is it?

Ford factories kept working day and night in europe and probably profited from slave labour. Henry ford was a vicious anti-semite and adored hitler (the feeling was mutual since it was Ford who had given him 70k USD campaign funds during his early days) openly until he was practically forced to shut up. His son was sitting in the board of I.G. Farben for god's sake. Even after the war he didn't give away the highest award hitler had given him.

IBM's punchcard machines were used by nazis and the corporation did'nt seem to mind much but it is uncertain if they had any control over their german operations beyond 1937.


Quote[/b] ]
The media has no place in war planning or operations period. Sherman was right, the media are spies. Media oversight, pfft, sounds like disinformation and sabotage to me. Media oversight can only harm the war effort and prolong the conflict or even lead to defeat. Sorry but defeat is not a acceptable alternative.

Many people die when "defeat is not an acceptable alternative," if everybody would have had that kind of mindset starting from korean war we might be trying to survive in a radioactive wasteland and not talk shit on a discussion board.

Without media oversight US military might have not bothered to get smart bombs, stopped using dangerous chemicals and had been more discriminate about killing civilians.


Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, go ahead, just blame it all on media just like every other wacko.

I'm not putting all the blame on the media. The citizens of the western nations are equally to blame, they are the ones who gobble the shit up.

You go ahead though and blame the nasty military. Just like every other naive soft westerner.

Blame military for what? Im mostly blaming current failures on certain trigger happy politicians and certain greedy companies.


Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.


I compare it because if the west today can't cope with an "insignificant" skirmish like Iraq, then they sure as hell can't cope with a real war with a nation like North Korea.

How do I think the west would react? I'm sure they would place sanctions for over a decade which the offending nation would ignore, then a few nations would step up and go to war and promptly sue for peace after just one day of batte in which thousands of troops died.


If the shit would really hit the fan today media would'nt even get to react until the nukes started raining.

[somebloke]

Sadly lives are lost in war though. I try to look at it as only 1,600 have died in three years. When worded that way though it sounds incredibly callous and heartless. I'm just trying to make the comparison between the death toll from other wars in which 1,000 dead a day were not uncommon. In those wars the people of the west steeled them selves and fought on to victory, I don't think the west today could do that.
Exactly.
You can't expect to have a war and not suffer casualties (in every sense of the word).
1,600 in 3 years. Thats nothing compared to the first few days of world war 1, roughly 20,000 Frenchman died within less than a week.

I mean even the WTC attacks claimed more lives in 1 day than the iraq war did over these 3 years.

[Akira]

I'm not even going to get into the whole "media vs. military vs. public perception" arguement, as in this thread it is entirely basedon a false assumption that the Iraq War is just as important as World War 2, a laughable comment.

World War Two was a global struggle against two evil and inherently brutal and rascist regimes. Both regimes (three if you count L'il Mussolini) were openly militiaristic and aimed at territorial expansion based on aggressive warfare, and demanded total dominance of their world vision. If you didn't capitulate you were crushed. If you were different than them, or failed to agree with their world vision, you were killed. It took the combined might of three major countries, and many smaller ones, to defeat these two (three), considerably smaller, nations. World War Two was a war of ideals. A war brought about not by Allied aggressions, but forced upon them by Axis aggression.

Just how exactly does Iraq fit that picture? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[DBR_ONIX]

Todat World War Two will never happen.. if it does it will have more deaths... because on biological/nuclear/chemical warfare http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif Who would land soldiers on beach with modern technology? Why people care more about casulties today, baceuse it possible to keep it low.
Exactly.
War's.. evolved.. Take pre WW1 wars, wrote bright colours, charged at each other etc.. WW1, less of the, what we see now adays as "stupid ideas", bright colours, charging at each other, slowly getting futher from the enemy. WW2, artilery and stuff used a lot, snipers. Now-a-days you dont even have to be in the same country to blow a building up http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

You wouldn't get the same media-coverage of the war today, countrys dont like to publicise the ammount of people that were killed. And, if you were incharge of a country, would you like to announce how many people your decision killed? Nope http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

Without the news, and the thousands of people protesting (Where did they get that idea from? Telepathy? The TV? Hmm, I wonder...), comprared to "old" (WW2 time, for example), propaganda etc about how evil the germans were etc etc, people were acctualy behind the war..

I wonder how long it'll be till the film "Iraq War 2 : Fight For Oil" is made.. half-decade maybe?
- Ben

[Denwad]

If Iraq was fought for oil

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>WHY IS GAS BECOMING MORE EXPENSIVE?</span>

[Daniel]

Because governments (at least here in the UK) like taxing us to peices? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[MontyVCB]

is there any real point to this thread? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[Balschoiw]

Quote[/b] ]WHY IS GAS BECOMING MORE EXPENSIVE?

Hint1: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040512/040512_basraoil_hmed_11a.h2.jpg

Hint2: http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/383-fire01.jpg

Hint3: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200412/r37731_94359.jpg

Hint4: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/20038202401/&#036;file/pipefire03lr.jpg

Question answered ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

[harley 3 1185]

Due to this thing called a "state of unrest" in the Middle East, the price of a barrel of oil has surpassed &#036;50, which is an astronomical increase over what it was 3-5 years back. That is why over the past 3-5 years Gas Prices have been getting higher and higher.

[EiZei]

Do you think the consumer price is any kind of indication? Oil companies are making nice profits nonetheless. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

I still wonder why the mods won&#39;t let this thread out of it&#39;s misery already. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif

[Sputnik Monroe]

Quote[/b] ]I still wonder why the mods won&#39;t let this thread out of it&#39;s misery already.

Get over it.There is a thread with differing opinions from yours so "It must be locked&#33;". Gimmie a break.

I think it&#39;s an intersting discussion, how would the west deal with a war in modern times. Except for a few people, this has been interesting so far. In particular I&#39;ve found Harley&#39;s opinions to be quite interesting.

To me Eizei it almost seems like you are saying "What&#33;? they don&#39;t agree with me&#33;? Lock it close it.

People keep bringing up Iraq because currently it&#39;s the closest thing to war that the west is involved in at the moment. So when discussing what if D day were today we end up using examples from Iraq. Is it that hard to understand?

It seems any time some one mentions Iraq, and espouses a differing opinion than the kliq&#39;s all hell breaks loose.

[EiZei]

Quote[/b] ]I still wonder why the mods won&#39;t let this thread out of it&#39;s misery already.

Get over it.There is a thread with differing opinions from yours so "It must be locked&#33;". Gimmie a break.
So start a thread that actually relates to that. The last posts have been Iraq (obvious?), flaming, gas prices and effects of modern warfare.

The if-it-was-today-blah-blah-liberals-blah has been already covered at least 2 times (think there was a third but im not wasting any more time on this):
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....wo;st=0 (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=44336;hl=iwo;st=0)
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....=nelson (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=44964;hl=nelson)

Or maybe the evil clique decided to force the mods to insert those posts there right? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Xawery]

Quote[/b] ]I think it&#39;s an intersting discussion, how would the west deal with a war in modern times.

That would certainly be an interesting discussion.

However, posting inflammatory material where direct comparisons between a World War and a controversial skirmish in a 3rd world country are drawn is a poor basis for such a discussion. Just becaused GWB put &#39;Freedom&#39; and &#39;Liberation&#39; stickers on his little &#39;adventure&#39; every chance he got, doesn&#39;t mean it should or could be compared to the great Allied effort of 1944.

[Akira]

If Iraq was fought for oil

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>WHY IS GAS BECOMING MORE EXPENSIVE?</span>
Ah. Fallacy Number Uno. Because the war was about oil, it is about giving the consumer the lowest prices on gas.

WRONG&#33;

Check out the profit of the large oil companies (who supposedly aren&#39;t profitting from these high prices) and then you will see why the war is about oil. And of course TBA&#39;s (who all come from oil companies) personal issue with that pesky Saddam.

[SFWanabe]

Quote[/b] ]I still wonder why the mods won&#39;t let this thread out of it&#39;s misery already.

Get over it.There is a thread with differing opinions from yours so "It must be locked&#33;". Gimmie a break.
So start a thread that actually relates to that. The last posts have been Iraq (obvious?), flaming, gas prices and effects of modern warfare.

The if-it-was-today-blah-blah-liberals-blah has been already covered at least 2 times (think there was a third but im not wasting any more time on this):
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....wo;st=0 (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=44336;hl=iwo;st=0)
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....=nelson (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=44964;hl=nelson)

Or maybe the evil clique decided to force the mods to insert those posts there right? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Why do you care about American politics? Your finnish it isnt really effecting you directly. Also dude just because a thread has opinions you dont agree in it doesnt mean it should be locked. So keep that in mind before you start saying "Why dont the mods put this thread out of it&#39;s misery?"

[EiZei]

Quote[/b] ]I still wonder why the mods won&#39;t let this thread out of it&#39;s misery already.

Get over it.There is a thread with differing opinions from yours so "It must be locked&#33;". Gimmie a break.
So start a thread that actually relates to that. The last posts have been Iraq (obvious?), flaming, gas prices and effects of modern warfare.

The if-it-was-today-blah-blah-liberals-blah has been already covered at least 2 times (think there was a third but im not wasting any more time on this):
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....wo;st=0 (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=44336;hl=iwo;st=0)
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....=nelson (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=44964;hl=nelson)

Or maybe the evil clique decided to force the mods to insert those posts there right? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Why do you care about American politics? Your finnish it isnt really effecting you directly. Also dude just because a thread has opinions you dont agree in it doesnt mean it should be locked. So keep that in mind before you start saying "Why dont the mods put this thread out of it&#39;s misery?"
Are you actually reading my posts? Im saying the thread should be let out of it&#39;s misery since it really has no real topic anymore and the same shit has been posted many times over. Feel free to start a proper thread about media&#39;s effect on war, I won&#39;t demand it to be locked.

And it does NOT concern only americans when countries start to get invaded and stomped over like that. Iraq is hell lot closer to us than you geographically. Hell, I could walk 500m to the nearest pizza joint and go talk with some kurdish refugees from Iraq about this if I wanted to.

The US is the sole superpower of the world, and as long as it maintains this kind of interventionist policy it DOES concern the rest of the world.

[SFWanabe]

Quote[/b] ]The US is the sole superpower of the world, and as long as it maintains this kind of interventionist policy it DOES concern the rest of the world. Yea so dont piss us off. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif


Quote[/b] ]And it does NOT concern only americans when countries start to get invaded and stomped over like that. Iraq is hell lot closer to us than you geographically. Hell, I could walk 500m to the nearest pizza joint and go talk with some kurdish refugees from Iraq about this if I wanted to.Okay good for you. But that has nothing to do with the US. Thats your government accepting refugees.

Quote[/b] ]Are you actually reading my posts? Im saying the thread should be let out of it&#39;s misery since it really has no real topic anymore and the same shit has been posted many times over. Feel free to start a proper thread about media&#39;s effect on war, I won&#39;t demand it to be locked.
Thats a matter of opinion.....

[EiZei]

Okay good for you. But that has nothing to do with the US. Thats your government accepting refugees.
That means that if you start invading other countries it does concern the rest of the world quite a lot actually.

[SFWanabe]

Well you really need to understand the after 9-11 the US is going to make some heads roll. I personally think Iraq was a quest for oil and not for Saddam or anything else and should not have been faught. But Afganistan was a operation that needed to be excuted. Also your government doesnt have to accept refugees from any country so its your country&#39;s fault not the US&#39;s fault for you having a refugee problem.

[EiZei]

Also your government doesnt have to accept refugees from any country so its your country&#39;s fault not the US&#39;s fault for you having a refugee problem.
Somebody just missed my point by a kilometer.. again. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

The bleeding point is that the aggressive foreign policy of the only superpower in the world has far-reaching results to everybody. I just took that up as an example.

[SFWanabe]

Well just remeber Finland wasnt attacked on 9-11 the USA was....

[EiZei]

Well just remeber Finland wasnt attacked on 9-11 the USA was....
And this is relevant why..?

[SFWanabe]

Well for one thing we aggressive right now for a reason. I havent seen Finland help find Bin Laden....

[EiZei]

Well for one thing we aggressive right now for a reason. I havent seen Finland help find Bin Laden....
Too bad a lot of the aggressiveness does not seem to relate to 9-11. And how the hell are we supposed to find bin laden? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

I can already imagine the elite 19-year-old special jaeger conscripts patrolling the pakistani border looking for al-qaeda operatives.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

EDIT: And come to think of it, this is the 21st post since the last even remotely on-topic post on this thread, who would have known. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif

[Akira]

Well just remeber Finland wasnt attacked on 9-11 the USA was....
9/11 shouldn&#39;t be a blank check to bomb, kill, destroy, and mutilate...especially people that had nothing to do with 9.11.

[SFWanabe]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we&#39;ve spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?

[SFWanabe]

Well just remeber Finland wasnt attacked on 9-11 the USA was....
9/11 shouldn&#39;t be a blank check to bomb, kill, destroy, and mutilate...especially people that had nothing to do with 9.11.
I agree. Thats why I didnt support the war in Iraq.

[EiZei]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we&#39;ve spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?
My point was made long ago. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Moving Target]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we&#39;ve spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?
And the point of increasing your post count is? Respect will go down after 100 points of nothingness.

What do you suppose those tactical errors were? People putting on fake beards and a turban in new york?

[SFWanabe]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we&#39;ve spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?
And the point of increasing your post count is? Respect will go down after 100 points of nothingness.

What do you suppose those tactical errors were? People putting on fake beards and a turban in new york?
No the tacical errors were for one letting the Northern Alliance be the ones to go into Tora Bora.

[SFWanabe]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we&#39;ve spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?
My point was made long ago. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Yea well it didnt make much sense.

[Xawery]

Yea well it didnt make much sense.
This statement says more about you than about Eizei&#39;s posts.

[harley 3 1185]

Back on topic people&#33; Jeez, with these kind of divisions one does get the feeling we&#39;d never be able to fight a World War now. If D-Day was today...it wouldn&#39;t be on the shores of France, but on the iron coast of China. Well, in a couple decades or so anyway. China is the one power which we Western Folk (and sorry for the incessant stereotyping here) have reason to fear, tho&#39; as the U.S.S.R. was feared for sheer bruteness, China is feared for her sheer economic growth. Should we stop having so many consumer goods fabricated and assembled there? Or should we risk lowering our standards of living to make ourselves more self-sufficent again?

[breaker44]

Well, if it meant avoiding war and providing a shot in the arm to the west, it may be worthwhile to shift some of this manufacturing business to the middle east. Even though China has grown economically, and therefore, militarily, it has also found a more democratic following within itself.
Anyway, we can pm about that, but when it comes to "war" correspondents, their increasing mission has been to win some sort of journalistic award, and to make their byline more visible on the frontpage. If more journalist were like, well Ernie Pyle than Heraldo Rivera, I don&#39;t think there would be this problem.
I&#39;m not sure how things would go should a third world war break out. If you ask me, it would begin in the Hindu Kush/ Kashmere (sp) region north of India., generally, though, that side of the world has been volatile since the collapse of the USSR, so the whole "alliance" thing could come into play, similar to the first world war.
Pleas try to keep the thread to mature debating, not personal attacks, differing opinions are good, that&#39;s what keeps the world turning as it does.
-Breaker Out

[SFWanabe]

Yea well it didnt make much sense.
This statement says more about you than about Eizei&#39;s posts.
Flamebaiting will get you..... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/band.gif

[Major Gripe]

Would a war over Kashmir really draw in other nations? I think the rest of the world realises how volatile that region is and would do anything but get involved militaristically for fear of it escalating.

[Akira]

Would a war over Kashmir really draw in other nations? I think the rest of the world realises how volatile that region is and would do anything but get involved militaristically for fear of it escalating.
I think it could, when you take into account that both nations are nuclear* powers, and China has claims of its own on parts of Kashmir.

As for D-Day in China...I find that unlikely...at least on the mainland. I find it far more likely that such an operation against the Chinese would be directed at Taiwan, and not the Chinese mainland (where you are just asking for trouble).


EDIT: *Changed atomic to nuclear...this isn&#39;t 1950. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[harley 3 1185]

Well, if it were me, and I was directed with invading China as part of a very large multi-national force (I&#39;m British, so I&#39;d never command), I&#39;d have the Americans, Australians and New Zealanders assault Taiwan - we can assume the Chinese will have taken it or will be about to. That would be the beach head for the superior forces of America. The smaller forces of Europe, on the other hand, would unite with the Indians (and hell, the Pakistanis too, their asses would be on the line) and drive on Kashmir, also assumed to have been taken by the Chinese already. Then both fronts would converge on China itself. European Naval Forces and the Indian Navy in the South China Sea, U.S. and ANZAC Fleets off Taiwan and Japan.

Okay, that is quite a silly little scenario, I know. What worries me if it ever came to a conventional war, would be that the Chinese, feeling cornered, would go tactical with the Atomic weapons. Not nice. Thank God it&#39;s only my imagination http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif.

[Sputnik Monroe]

Quote[/b] ]Well, if it were me, and I was directed with invading China as part of a very large multi-national force

   Now it&#39;s getting interesting.

   I think I would by pass liberating Taiwan for the most part and concentrate the bulk of all allied forces on the main land. Not saying I would completely write off Taiwan, I would send a naval force to engage the Chinese navy there and hopefully blockade the Chinese troops already landed in Taiwan. From there I would then gauge if it would be feasible to invade Taiwan with a smaller force to liberate it. If it would call for a massive force, I would simply keep up the blockade rather than diverting too many forces from mainland Asia.

    Basically I&#39;m thinking more or less of the island hopping campaign in the south pacific during the second world war. Some times an island wasn&#39;t worth the time and effort to invade as it could simply be cut off leaving the Japanese forces on it stranded, thus saving time and advancing towards Japan. So looking at Taiwan I would think it almost more important to take the war to China directly overland in an attempt to end the war sooner.

   The whole over land approach though is a bit sketchy at this point though. I&#39;m thinking going through from South Korea if in the scenario North Korea is acting out as an ally to China. Another option would be to cross from India if they end up being involved as an ally, problem with that is crossing the Hindu Kush?

     The question would be getting permission from various countries like Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam etc for permission to attack from their nations. I find permission from them to be very unlikely, as I sincerely doubt they would want to get involved in a war with China.

      On another note about the whole Kashmir issue, didn&#39;t China and Pakistan sign a sort of defense pact type treaty in the past year or two?

China going nuclear as a last resort seems unavoidable. That one has me stumped.

[Akira]

Interesting. What I would do:

My first goal would be full force in "liberating" Taiwan. Locals are more likely to aid you, it would be a great PR victory, and if indeed an invasion to the mainland is needed it gives you the needed stepping stone, and easy base of operations.

With such a base secured its possible to use region anomosities against the Chinese. India, Pakistan, and Vietnam have all had less then pleasant relations with China...Vietnam fighting a small border war. Assuming this is a war of Chinese aggression (either via Taiwan or the more unlikely Kashmir...or possibly unacceptable actions in Tibet), it would be a simple matter of slick diplomacy to get the required rights to launch attacks into China proper.

Now before an actual invasion, I would certainly institute a 21st century version of strategic bombing by copious use of Tomahawks and Harpoons, B1&#39;s and B2&#39;s, coupled with Sputniks blockade.

North Korea would be tough. It is most likely they would see such an opportunity as a chance to unify Korea, especially if Allied forces seemed occupied near Taiwan. Japan, S. Korea, and a small force would be necessary to hold and delay N. Korea. That area is the main area of concern as far as unknowns.

As far as nuclear, the only way to negate such action is to make sure they have to contimplate using nukes on their own soil, and using that information to enflame citizens desire to rid themselves of their communist dictators.

Generous use of SF would also be in order.

[breaker44]

Id make my assault through Russia, the way the Mongols used to. After a huge bombing campaign by SAC on China&#39;s coastline, an Airborne operation would ensue in the north and western parts of the country. Russian armor would support these troops as we push the Chinese out of the hills (where their missiles probably are) and push south and east.
-Breaker Out

[shinRaiden]

Post-WW2 &#39;progressive&#39; rules dictate that western nations have to pull their punches because of historical &#39;guilt&#39;, which complicates factors as the devalued peasentry of Asia can more easily engaged by their supreme leaders. They don&#39;t loose any political capital by deploying human shields where we would be castigated, and we can&#39;t just firebomb the cities anyway.

The problem is that even if we wanted to play old-school "burn the city, level the temples, and sow the fields with salt" tactics, and even if the commie wusses would let us do it, it&#39;s not efficent, There&#39;s two immediate problems with a land war in Asia, and now a third looming as well. First off is the well-known distance issues. Iraq&#39;s not all that big, and it still takes an insane amount of lead time, coordination, and stupid amounts of pork barrel money that could be going to other home district corruption projects to finance. Directly related to that is the forward mobility and deployment issues. Clancy plays with that in "Debt of Honor" and "The Bear and The Dragon". Unfortunately, neither is a likely scenario.

China&#39;s not stupid, they&#39;ll use the DPRK to push for "reunification" under the Juche banner and kick out the US forces there, solidify alliances with India to clog up that end, promote fiefdoms and such in Indonesia etc, and bottle up Japan via reparations demands for Nanking. Most likely they&#39;d cut deals with Russia on various things, so at best we couldn&#39;t stage out of Siberia. That puts Pearl very much alone, and you can kiss Guam goodbye, and Diego Garcia&#39;s not going to be much help either.

China&#39;s got two clear choices, get bogged down slogging it out on Taiwan, or &#39;intercede&#39; in a rapid &#39;neighborly&#39; fashion to a Taipei &#39;crisis&#39;. There&#39;s enough armchair quarterbacks here that have played Victor Troska to see how that will go. The trick is to move in and secure keypoints before a couple carrier groups can move in and blockade the Formosa Straights. In any case, there will be congressional hearings etc about rigging a "Tonkin II" provocation, and lots of other pansy traitors with nothing better to do than sell out their country will stand around waving signs etc.

The other nasty problem with land wars in Asia is the body count. There&#39;s a whole heckload of them, and you&#39;re not going to have situations like Fallujah, where the civilians clear out and the terrorists stay. If you run the numbers, that&#39;s an insane amount of ammo to get the job done the old fashioned way, and how are you going to get it over there? Secondly, how do you plan to do SOF decapitation raids against an infrastructure that massive?

That&#39;s something that I hope the planners have taken a long hard look at. We weren&#39;t in the business of selling our best toys to the USSR, and our toys worked a lot better, except for the AK and the RPG. Not so with China. All they have to do is line Bill and Hillary&#39;s campaign pockets, pay a trivial fine for the &#39;oversight&#39;, send all their kids to school here, steal our technology, tweak it, make it even better, and produce them by the billions.

We didn&#39;t think we could beat the Soviet&#39;s quantity, so we cleaned their clocks with quality. Now the Chinese have quality and quantity, which cuts the odds dramaticly. We do have a couple trump cards though... the Aussies, the Kiwis, and the Tongan/Samoan/Maori contingent. Heaven help the chinese when the Anzac&#39;s roll up to clean out the town...

Actually though, it&#39;s interesting to note the increasing military role that the Aussies and the Japanese are playing in East Asian affairs. This is definately going to be a double-bowl-of-nachos armchair-quarterbacking scenario.

[Cozza]

Id make my assault through Russia, the way the Mongols used to.
The Chinnese have a big ass wall set up around there with Snipers and AT weapons on it and Machine Guns.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif

*Edit* I love these new smilleys*

[breaker44]

On the great wall of china?
Ya sure there sport?
-Breaker Out

[Cozza]

No buts its a good idea

[Hellfish6]

The Great Wall is still a big wall - what general would like to go down in history as the destroyer of one of mankind&#39;s greatest triumphs? It&#39;s still a military (and now political) obstacle.

[harley 3 1185]

The wall is just one very large example of a linear defense - one line. Once part of it is infiltrated by large numbers of rappelling heli-borne troops and infantry mounting an escalade by ladder, the rest quickly becomes worthless.

As for the use of Special Forces, they might just save the day. I assume our intelligence services haven&#39;t been sitting on their arses and thus have a pretty good idea where China would keep her Nuclear weapons. If so, utilising the huge numbers of SF forces knocking about the world these days, at the start of the campaign we&#39;d have to send in a great number of "Kamikaze" squads to take out these missile and weapons installations, if necessary sending Airborne Infantry in to cover them (not the Elite Kind, just airnorne http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif) If all China&#39;s Nuclear weapons can be neutralised at one stroke, and her Uranium enrichment facilities neutralised by air, the West would have a damnably easier job of defeating Beijing.

I amend my earlier post by having a British Corps sent to Taiwan with the Yanks, in order to "Liberate" Hong Kong and Macao. Some of us have to get our priorities straight, y&#39;know http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif.

[Postduifje]

Research shows that if D-Day were to happen today, over 90% of the people would be very suprised.

[Sputnik Monroe]

Quote[/b] ]As for the use of Special Forces, they might just save the day.  I assume our intelligence services haven&#39;t been sitting on their arses and thus have a pretty good idea where China would keep her Nuclear weapons.  If so, utilising the huge numbers of SF forces knocking about the world these days, at the start of the campaign we&#39;d have to send in a great number of "Kamikaze" squads to take out these missile and weapons installations,

   Unfortunately, even a massive simultaneous assault on every Nuke site in China would miss a few unknown sites. That and such a large operation would have various successes and failures. Some spec ops groups would be lost and their particular objectives failed. In the worst case I could see word reaching the Chinese high commander during the attack, at which point they might launch some out of desperation. All that said, it’s the only option I can see and would be necessary. In the end it seems to come down to waiting until they are cornered and having them launch their full arsenal or taking out as many of the sites as possible and then they feel cornered and launch less than their full arsenal.

    The great wall is an interesting point, though I sincerely doubt any allied forces would be granted permission to attack from Russia. Would do you suppose it would take for Russia to take part? I personally think they would sit the conflict out as neutral nation. If an attack was from the north I believe the great wall would simply prove to be nothing more than a 21st century maginot line. I would hate to be the commander who has to take responsibility in the history books for destroying a section of a wonder of the world though. Makes me think of the monastery at monte cassino.

  It&#39;s an interesting the mention of Vietnam. I forgot about their little war with China and that they don’t exactly have rosy relations

[breaker44]

Well, relics be damned, it&#39;s just a wall. Nothing more, nothing less.
-Breaker Out

[harley 3 1185]

If memory serves people tend to get over the destruction of old buildings very quickly; or just rebuild them. Old Warsaw&#39;s been totally rebuilt, Ypres from World War One was totally rebuilt. Hell, just think of all the towns and villages and all the little churches obliterated in France and Italy in the two World Wars.
As for the Great Wall of China, you&#39;d have to destroy only so many segments of it. I doubt 1000 miles would crumble under Allied gunfire...
And if large chunks were damaged? In the peace which followed the drive on Beijing, local Chinese could be put to work rebuilding it for good money, thus quelling any thoughts of rebellion...Win Win all round.