Why do some insist on applying WW 2 tactics to a possible WW 3 ?

Question

A war with Iraq - yeah sure apply all the world war 2 tactics you want to it makes some sense to do that

But a war between Russia and the US or NATO and the SCO will not follow old battle lines and allied nations vs non allied nations

The jump between world war one where we started out with horses and were stuck in trench war fare to the jump to tanks and a fully mechanized "calvary" bombers and air fights -

Think

That was 60 yrs ago

Applying WW 1 tactics to WW 2 makes as much sense as applying WW 2 tactics to a 3rs world war

---------------

The "shields" will if all goes well stop less than 10 % of the missiles incoming from Russia

Nuclear subs intercontental missles and possibly harmless looking passenger jets with nukes to explode a mile over land - the EMP will knock out all but the most hardened electronics and make communication severely limited to impossible

How many NATO nations "ring" Russia might start a war but it will make no difference to the war itself

Once one nation lets off a nuke you can count on international panic

Israel will likely nuke Iran - Just to be safe - China will launch as a precaution against whoever they think is their biggest threat India and Pakistan will likely blow each other up

The panic will be instant - Once one nation has initiated a nuclear war would you sit by and hope for the best - that no one is attacking or going to attack you ?

Russia "hits" the USA or visa versa - there will be full out retaliation

These old man tactics are as useless as setting up a British Square to combat the spears of Zulu warriors

Why do some in this day and age of internet and TV still think in in war tactics that have long since passed ?

Answer 1

You do realize that we are not fighting on old WW2 tactics.  The military's training regime changed dramatically within the last decade to keep up with an ever changing world of technology.  Foreign policy/ foreign relations are the single most important things we can be involved in as a nation.  Without that constant communication and pressure to keep rogue nations from getting out of control, we'd be in turmoil right now.  That's why it's so crucial for us to vote for a president that will keep good relations with other  nations.  I'm sorry but, I'll take good foreign policy over universal heath care.  What's heath insurance going to do for you're dead from a rogue nation's nuke?

Answer 2

History repeats itself. Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Answer 3

I think that you miss the point entirely - at the end of the day you need some PBI (poor bloody infantryman) with his rifle and bayonet to take ground, this is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan on a conveyor belt system (because we don`t have enough troops at the moment) to take it and hold onto it.  Granted tactics such as the British Square are outdated, I don`t think the taliban have any cavalry, but all round defence is not. In a nuclear environment, we can all kiss our a*ses goodbye.

Answer 4

Tank warfare is pretty much obsolete, The Apache can take out numerous tanks at one time by just one chopper.

Answer 5

I agree with your assessment about WWI.  I do however think that WWII was pretty technically advanced, yes the bombs are different and the methods to deliver them, but the forms of diplomacy and targeting enemies in a united front were there.  The main difference I see is the speed at which information travels and the fact that many players in the world now have nukes.  I think the main reason people reference a future WWIII right now, is how fast recent cold war era themes have re-emerged.