Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi
Let's consider updating our terminology or language. So, rather than "Western," or "Third World," I suggest we consider whether an army is a "peer," "near-peer," or "non-peer."
In general, we are comparing these peer terms to the US military forces as her forces extend power over the globe.
If we were to consider a peer army, in terms of our game, certainly, then our concerns are not whether a force can challenge the US anywhere, but only if that force can challenge the US on a winspmbt map with like TO&E.
Then, our use of a peer does not encompass strategic qualites, but is confined to the tactical determinants.
So, we might agree that while Russia and China are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China sea, this does not mean Russia and China combined can challenge the US anywhere.
However, in our game, we may agree that a Chinese belligerent force vs an American or for that matter, the Brits meets the condition to talk about the belligerent as a peer, because the Chinese have comparable TO&E.
A near-peer would be France (I like french fries), and a non-peer would be Mexico, Japan or the Daesh forces in Syria and Iraq.
So then to proceed, the title of this thread would more aptly be titled: "Acceptable US Casualties Against Non-peer Armies."
=====
|
I generally try to avoid as much military jargon as possible on here myself. Not sure it makes anything much clearer either, as, just to take your example, using the USA as a base I would probably make France and Japan peer, in game terms. While the Japanese Self Defense Force lacks much recent experience, their military history suggests they would be formidable, highly disciplined, troops.
So you might have USA (including USMC of course) UK, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia and China as peer nations in terms of a land battle group
as of this year.
Near peer would be much of the rest of Western Europe, including Poland, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, assorted former Eastern bloc nations, Vietnam, Egypt, Singapore, maybe South Africa (although nothing I hear about that army, these days, would give me all that much confidence in it against a serious enemy from outside Africa) perhaps one or two of the richer South American nations.
Non peer would be just about anyone else, including assorted terrorists/guerilla groups.
Of course you could argue about exactly what nations are peer and what are near peer (for example, I think you could make a strong case for Australia and Canada being rated as peer forces) and
sometimes they change over time. Then you have exceptions like New Zealand, excellent, well trained, if very small Army, but, these days, they lack Armoured and air support.