You just gotta love how US military say everything openly and in their reports. In particular, it has a forecast of US casualties and mobilization reserves in a conflict of this level.
Thesis:
- military doctors project a [KIA and WIA] casualty rate for the US Armed Forces of 3,600\day.
- The combat replenishment rate is 25% or 800 troops per day.
- In 20 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has lost about 50,000 people.
In a conflict of the Ukrainian level, the U.S. would suffer such losses in 2 weeks.
- The recruitment shortage is a major problem.
- every soldier not recruited today is a strategic mobility asset [IRR or reservists] that the US will not have in 2031**
- IRR was 700K in 1973, 450K in 1994, now at 76K.
- These numbers will not make up for the projected losses.
- the 70’s concept of contract forces is outdated and does not fit the current operational environment.
- The needs of the U.S. Armed Forces for a Ukrainian-level war require a transition to conscription.
Exactly. So why waste time deciding on conscripted soldiers for a fantasy Ukrainian scenario?
What you evidently missed here is that this is discussing what’s currently happening to the Ukrainian army and their losses. That’s what they’re making their projections based on.
You evidently missed my point which is that the situation for the Ukrainian people is unique to them. The whole What If That Was Us is pure speculative fantasy and not useful.
Except that’s not true at all, what the paper shows is what US can expect if it finds itself in a direct conflict with a peer competitor. Given that US continues trying to provoke a war with China, that’s not that speculative of a scenario.