An analysis of the war history of the eight western expeditions: why can't the United States win a war completely after World War II?

After World War II, the United States led dozens of wars and military conflicts, but none of them won the final victory. Experts pointed out that although today's US military has great technological advantages and won many battles, it is impossible to win any war. We tried to find out why.

With the emergence of nuclear weapons, the United States began to rely on nuclear strikes in the war. At the end of 1945, dwight eisenhower's "summary" plan was approved to carry out nuclear bombs in the Soviet Union 17 cities. 1In June, 946, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Army formulated the "Iron Clamp" plan to use 50 nuclear bombs in 20 core areas attacked by the Soviet Union.

At the end of 1948, a nuclear war codenamed "Imperial House" was launched against the Soviet Union. The United States plans to drop 133 nuclear bombs on 70 Soviet cities in the first stage of the war, and then drop 200 nuclear bombs and 250,000 conventional bombs in the next two years.

1949 The "hanging ball" plan was formulated at the end of the year, and it was planned to drop 300 nuclear bombs on 100 Soviet cities. According to American estimates, this nuclear attack and subsequent conventional bombing will lead to the death of nearly 60 million Soviet citizens. Considering the future combat operations, the death toll will exceed 654.38 billion.

The only condition for implementing the "hanging ball" plan is that the United States has accumulated a certain number of nuclear bombs and other weapons.

The Soviet Union's successful possession of nuclear weapons destroyed a series of American plans to destroy the Soviet Union in a nuclear war. The third world war was stillborn, and tens of millions of people and the whole world avoided extinction.

The nuclear strike plan against Russia has not been abandoned. In order to attack Russia with impunity, the United States has strengthened the construction of military satellite clusters, deployed anti-missile systems in Europe and improved nuclear bomb delivery vehicles.

However, these efforts are doomed to fail, because Russia has a strong modern strategic nuclear force. Some American politicians estimate that even if only one nuclear bomb falls in the United States, it is an unacceptable loss. American President John F. Kennedy once said to Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union, "Our missiles are enough to destroy you 30 times." Khrushchev replied, "We can only destroy you once, but that is enough."

The level of military theory is very low.

One of the weaknesses of the Pentagon's military strategy is the lack of military science. It should be noted that American names rarely appear in military science.

Now, the United States is actively studying and popularizing the concept of "network-centric warfare", which is a military guiding principle created by the US Department of Defense and naval officers. Its theoretical basis is to integrate and improve the combat capability of the armed forces, so that all departments can coordinate and command more quickly and act more effectively.

However, it can be seen from the analysis that network-centric warfare is only a new way to command and manage all kinds of weapons and equipment, with the aim of improving its combat capability. Therefore, from the perspective of military science, it cannot be called a new model of armed struggle.

Looking back on American operations since 15, the concept of network-centric warfare is only used to confront weak enemies in relatively mild military conflicts. These opponents have neither modern reconnaissance equipment, including satellites, nor powerful deadly weapons, including long-range precision strike weapons, nor advanced automatic command and communication systems. Therefore, the effectiveness of this theory in confronting deadly enemies is not clear at present.

Despite criticism, the United States has been actively promoting the view that future wars will mainly use precision-guided weapons, which are network-centric and non-contact. Its purpose is to make the whole world have meaningless ideas of military competition with the United States.

American soldiers firmly believe that information technology can make users reduce or eliminate the "fog of war" more effectively. This fact highlights the immaturity of American military theory and will also affect the outcome of American operations.

There are several strategic weaknesses.

Over-reliance on computers: The success of various actions of the US military depends largely on the reliability of the Internet and data transmission systems, which is also the strategic weakness of the United States in modern wars.

In the United States, computers and data transmission systems are widely used in the military field. The Pentagon has 7 million computer interactive devices and1.5000 military local area networks in 88 countries and regions around the world. Every day, millions of potential hackers covet these fragile systems.

Network attack is much simpler and faster than defense, and the cost is lower. The annual defense budget of the United States is about $700 billion.

In addition to computer systems, the US military also relies heavily on aviation communication, navigation and positioning, which is also a weak hidden danger of the US military.

The more comfortable you are, the more timid you are: except for the civil war from 186 1 to 1865, there has never been a civil war on American territory. This makes it impossible for the American people to endure the suffering brought by the war for a long time, and it is even more unacceptable to be deprived of their rights and freedoms during the war. This has also affected the US military, making it always strive for a long distance and less bloodshed in combat, and it is best to kill it with a knife. The Iraq war is proof.

Today's US military has great technological advantages. However, as we all know, the combat effectiveness of the army includes both material and spiritual aspects. The weapons and equipment of the American army are world-class, but the mental state of the army is not good.

The US military operations in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan show that the US military is more willing to use aircraft, cruise missiles and long-range artillery for non-contact warfare. Any real confrontation will frighten the American army. For example, after the United States lost several special forces in Somalia, it immediately suspended its "peacekeeping operations" in that country. In 2008, the Russian Air Force resumed its combat cruise near the US border, which immediately caught the attention of the White House.

The United States has become accustomed to non-contact warfare and pinned all its hopes on technological superiority. This will corrode American soldiers, because they can't directly feel the necessary danger in the war, give them the confidence to get something for nothing, and make them lose their ability to fight directly on the battlefield for a long time.

It is difficult to mobilize the people: local wars and large-scale wars inevitably need manpower, and wars need to mobilize all the forces of the whole country. Therefore, the view that "war depends on people" still has practical significance in today's world.

The contract recruitment system in the United States completely deprives American citizens of the moral motivation to work for their motherland voluntarily. Defending the motherland is no longer the duty of American citizens. It is not the whole society or the whole people who undertake national defense tasks, but mercenaries. Their main motivation for joining the army is economic consideration, not serving the country.

Generally speaking, mercenaries never devote themselves to fighting. They can accomplish their tasks well in short-term local wars against weak enemies, but they can't stand the test in fierce and long-lasting large-scale wars. So as early as the 1980s, former US President Nixon said, "It is wrong to abolish the compulsory system."