Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeraaa
I think the biggest factor of minimal Western casualties is the very good selection of opponents. Unless attacked first, Western forces will wage war against the most inefficient opponent possible. This, not only ensures a victory, but it minimises casualties to the minimum possible.
Just to clarify, I dont find this strategy bad or spineless. If anything it is smart and pragmatic. But what I wrote is merely my opinion why modern Western forces have such low casualty ratios in the armed conflicts they participated in.
Btw I know it is good ol' fashioned bravado that I also experienced, but you were extremely optimistic if you thought that in a potential WW3 scenario the ratio of losses would be 4 to 1.
|
I don't think, for moment that Western forces actually
select who they will wage war against, for one thing our political types are far, far, too clueless for that,
On the other hand , these days, much older, and much wiser, having seen much more of the Russians, their kit and military, etc, I think we might actually have managed around five to one.