Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan
Indeed, and looking at the state of morale is just as reasonable as looking at military resources.
|
But moral without context is meaningless. Military potential such as size, resources, etc doesn't need the political context to be meaningful.
Quote:
|
... now however much data you may pull up on military potential there are other factors which would probably prove pivotal. Unless you can assess these the argument is likely bunk.
|
Could prove important yes, likely to no. Neither side is likely to start a war in a way that will destroy their moral. As it is the West has so many advantages in so many areas that it is unlikely to effect who wins although it would likely effect how fast.
Quote:
|
Nope, world domination is not a tennant of communism, the spreading of an ideal is but world domination is not.
|
A rose by another name. If Communism is spread world wide then it is dominating the world.
Quote:
|
But without it any statement on military potential is meaningless, just as to talk about the physical state of two boxers is pretty irrelevant without consideration of whether they actually want to win a fight.
|
No it's not meaningless. In particular if one is significantly better then you can say that the weaker fighter is going to have to be a lot more motivated to win. That is in essence my position and I don't see anything outside a colossal blunder on the part of the West that would produce the moral/motivational difference that would allow a Soviet victory.
Quote:
|
...however the assumption of an easy romp through China is flawed and the idea of using naval firepower in an area the size of which we are considering is difficult at best.
|
Who said easy? Note that the Soviets don't have anything like an ideal logistics/mobility net in this area either.
At no point did I mean to imply that naval gunfire was to used throughout the entire area. It is very useful on in coastal areas however.