Are these the only conventional peer level engagements the United States has engaged in in the past 23 years? Are there others?
I'm not a zigger trying to be a shithead; a video for the Al-Asad AB attack popped up in my recommendeds feed and it got me curious. I can't think of other examples. Iranians arresting US servicemen or trolling with speedboats and drones don't count since there was no live fire, same with russkis dumping oil or flares on drones.
Also I'm counting the Pakis as peer-level because they're a nuclear powered state.
DVIDS for the latter two,
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/584741/coalition-air-strike-artillery-firing-sdf
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/584540/t-72-weapon-system-video
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/785331/al-asad-tbm-attack
We haven't engaged a peer enemy since 1944
Please don't post if you're clinically stupid. Thanks.
depends if you count insurgency. very different types of warfare
"Conventional" clearly excludes insurgency, not to mention "peer level."
Again, please don't post if you're clinically stupid.
Which peer enemy have we engaged since 1944?
The fucking OP said both conventional and peer level. The examples posted could be one or the other, but not both. It’s like claiming that killing a bunch of Middle Eastern sheep herders armed with pitchforks would be a “conventional” AND “peer level” engagement just because some AWOL Marine was taking a shit in one of their latrines at the time.
A USAF strike on the entrenched AAA of a nuclear power, the USAF and artillery shattering an assault by a Russian unit that would go on to see heavy combat in Ukraine, and US personnel surviving a ballistic missile strike by a regional powerhouse that the US has not felt confident engaging, are all conventional and peer level.
Ah yes the near peer enemies of:
>North Korean and starving China
>North Vietnam
>Iraq
>Serbia
>Iraq again
Retard
Korea?
Pretty fucking sure the veterans of 1st Cavalry Division beg to differ.
>Hear the patter of running feet
>It’s the old First Cav in full retreat
>They’re moving on; they’ll soon be gone
>They’re haulin’ ass, not savin’ gas
>They’ll soon be gone.
>Over on that hill there’s a Russian tank
>A million Chinks are on my flank
>I’m movin’ on, I’ll soon be gone
>With my M1 broke, it ain’t no joke
>I’ll soon be gone.
>Million Chinks comin’ through the pass
>Playin’ burp-gun boogie all over my ass
>I’m movin’ on, I’ll soon be gone
>With my M1 broke, it ain’t no joke
>I’ll soon be gone.
You stupid fucking morons are as bad as vatniks. Try spewing your horse shit to a veteran of Eighth Army and see how receptive they are of your actual retardation.
Even if you want to arbitrarily discount China and Iran as peers, we had an open air war against the Soviets in Korea. If you're going to try and claim the Soviet Union wasn't a peer opponent to the United States during the Cold War, then you honestly might as well don clown makeup and publicly castrate yourselves.
Fucking morons. It's a wonder you can even figure out how to post.
Sorry but the US hasn’t fought near peers since WW2
Ugh!
I know!
I know it sucks!
But we’ve only fought 3rd worlders!
You’re just gonna have to fucking deal with it!
You'd be more respectable if you went the clown makeup+castration option instead of making this embarrassing dogshit post.
How does it feel to be the US equivalent of a mindless delusional zigger drone? I know retards generally enjoy life a bit more because ignorance is bliss and all, so must feel kinda nice to shit garbage all over the place, particularly if you're too oblivious and unaware to even realize what an embarrassment you are.
You’re doing this thing where you think insulting people like you’re a middle school band kid makes you sound smart, but you’re just a retard.
None of those armies were peers in terms of navies or air forces, and even their armies weren’t truly peers.
Now shut the fuck up and go away.
You're doing this thing where you're a massive fucking retard with no point whatsoever, who has humiliated himself, but keeps spewing bullshit.
You shut the fuck up and go away you actual retard.
When someone talks about Korea they're talking about China and the norks.
By your logic Vietnam was a war where we fought the Soviet union and got defeated by them.
Israel fought them too and won
We've been fighting Russia for almost a decade now in Syria.
Obviously nobody would ever say things like this and be serious because they're ridiculous statements. The fact that Soviet pilots were fighting us in multiple wars doesn't mean that we ever fought the soviets in peer conflict.
>By your logic Vietnam was a war where we fought the Soviet union and got defeated by them.
Yeah, no; we didn't have an open air war with the Soviet Air Force in Vientam you fucking imbecile. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you think the number of Soviet pilots in Korea is even fucking comparable to the number in Vietnam.
>We've been fighting Russia for almost a decade now in Syria.
The only known time we actually fought them is in OP.
Why has the board's average IQ dropped so, so much?
>You have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you think the number of Soviet pilots in Korea is even fucking comparable to the number in Vietnam.
Who said anything about pilots? Its a known fact that tens of thousands of Soviet "advisors" were in Vietnam for years and operated SAMs across the country which downed dozens of American planes.
So when thousands of Russians fight in Korea, it counts as us fighting the Soviet union. But when thousands of Russians fight in Vietnam it doesn't count? Why not?
The correct answer is of course neither count and we never fought the Soviets in a "conventional peer level engagement" but I'm sure you'll figure out a way to justify your delusion.
I know. This doesn't mean that we fought the Soviet union. Their argument is one layer of delusion away from saying that NATO troops are fighting in Russia
>We fought the Soviet Union directly.
>But that doesn't mean we fought the Soviet Union.
We never once fought the Soviet union directly. DIRECTLY. In Korea, the planes were not flying with Soviet insignia and the shit in Vietnam was all extremely hush hush.
The flying tigers arrived in China before Pearl Harbor. Does that mean we were fighting Japan before Pearl Harbor? NO
>the planes were not flying with Soviet insignia
By your logic the Ukrainians didn't fight the Russians 2014-2016, either.
They are active duty Soviet personnel, flying state of the art Soviet jets. That's fighting the Soviets.
Even then, you have stuff like this,
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/capt-e-royce-williams-f9f-5-pilot-who-dogfight-alone-against-7-soviet-migs-and-shot-down-4-of-them-was-awarded-the-navy-cross-but-medal-of-honor-still-sought/
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/e-royce-williams-medal-of-honor-korean-war/
where USN pilots shot down Soviet MiGs, precious insignias and all.
>By your logic the Ukrainians didn't fight the Russians 2014-2016, either.
No, this is different. Russia intervened in the conflict and became a full combatant. If they entered under the DPR/LPR flag then it would be different but it was an open secret that they were there and there was no attempt to hide it.
>They are active duty Soviet personnel, flying state of the art Soviet jets. That's fighting the Soviets.
Shooting down a Soviet MiG is not fighting the Soviet Union. There's dozens of other events like this that happened during the cold war and it changes nothing. The fact of the matter is that while we were at war with North Korea and China in the Korean War and we were supporting the South Vietnamese in the Vietnam War, we never engaged the Soviets in an actual peer level conflict. So no, while some USN pilots may have shot down Soviet MiGs in Korea, it still does not mean we were in a conflict with the Soviets.
You need some type of Operation Flashpoint style story for us to have fought the Soviets. It just didn't happen!
This would be awesome and would also be completely fair. Like I said earlier the flying tigers fighting Japan didn't mean we were fighting the Japanese and this is no different.
>If they entered under the DPR/LPR flag then it would be different
They did. That's what happened 2014-2016 you stupid fucker.
>Shooting down a Soviet MiG is not fighting the Soviet Union.
I'm not reading your garbage dogshit posts anymore. There are diagnosed retards who are smarter than you.
>They did. That's what happened 2014-2016 you stupid fucker.
No, this isn't what happened. You dont know what your talking about
Yes it is you dumb moronic stupid fucking gay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilovaisk
The one that doesn't know what he's talking about is you you insufferably stupid fucking imbecile.
Don't post such shit if you're so fucking dumb.
No. You read a couple Wikipedia pages and think you know shit.
In August 2014 the Russian army invaded the Donbas. They did not move in under the DPR/LPR flag, they crossed the border "by accident". They never operated under the militias, always independently, and on the ground they never claimed to be DPR or LPR.
Like in Vietnam officially there were no soldiers present. The difference here is that in Vietnam the Soviets operated under the Vietnamese flag and generally under Vietnamese leadership. They were not a unit of the Soviet army in any way.
This also means that the us did engage in peer war in Korea, in the air at least.
So hopefully your moron brain can now understand how America didn't fight the USSR in Vietnam but Ukraine fought Russia during the ATO operation.
>We never once fought the Soviet union directly. DIRECTLY. In Korea, the planes were not flying with Soviet insignia
Turnabout's fair play, then.
>Their argument is one layer of delusion away from saying that NATO troops are fighting in Russia
Ah, yes, because NATO has thousands of pilots flying F-16s in the Ukrainian Air Force.
... oh, wait.
The Soviet Union sent an aviation corps (11 fighter regiments at its peak, plus air defense divisions, support units--- something like 25,000+ personnel) to fight in the Korean War. There were several fighter aces who were awarded the title 'Hero of the Soviet Union' for shooting down UN aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_Fighter_Aviation_Corps
As it turns out, fighting peer level enemies is kind of a dumb idea.
but also it is not like they're masters of strategy picking good, winnable wars
Great thread OP, keep it up!
The U.S. has not fought a "peer" enemy since WW2.
The US hasn't had a full scale peer conflict since WW2. Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq 1 were all difficult conflicts that sufficiently challenged our military and civil apparatus to keep us competent, but they were not peer. The only "peers" to the US that have existed after ww2 were soviet Russia (for a few decades anyway) and the rest of NATO (who are on our side). Peers enemies have literally not existed. No other country post-USSR has been able to match the US strategically in terms of technology, manpower, training, and logistics. Russia is not a peer, and is getting shit stomped by some random Slavic shithole. China is the closest modern peer, however their lack of experience, technological acumen, and limited nuclear capabilities mean technically they are also not peers (yet). The US always has a retarded strong edge. Cards always in its favor.
The US has been top dog for the last 75 years. Despite the lack of peer conflicts, they have nonetheless managed to keep themselves as sharp as possible by fighting literally everybody else for decades, non-stop, in a variety of conflicts ranging from all out war (Iraq 1) to limited air/naval (the oil war shit with Iran in the 80's in the gulf), to multi-trillion dollar scale COIN shenanigans on a national scale (Afghanistan, Iraq). The US's experience with every part of the spectrum of warfare is unparalleled, due to real work experience and simply because an insurgency or limited conflict for us is a full scale war for anybody else.
OP clearly didn't say full scale.