Question about the "power" of the Military

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
As for a 1939 army? I'd use the British one, we managed to beat back superior numbers with inferior firepower.

Did we?

I thought we were overwealmed and forced to retreat. The saving grace we had was the channel...

Former Member

The US hasn't faced a big enemy with a respectable air force in a long, long time anyway. In a recent war games exercise with India, the USAF was served a humiliating defeat with 90% losses. The Indians achieved this with a range of ageing Mig fighters as well, though they also had the awesome Sukhoi SU-30K Flanker, an aircraft that kicks the arse of absolutely every single war plane in existence anywhere. Full story

Israeli pilots are also known to give their American counterparts comprehensive poundings whenever the two carry out war games, and if the US were to face a proper adversary with a proper air force in a real conflict, things would be rather different from the walk-overs Iraq and Kosovo were...

Former Member

Maybe the Americans just need to be taught how to fight properly? Maybe they lost because they kept attacking their own aircraft carriers mistaking them for Iraqi scuds?

The US wouldn't stand a chance in a war against Europe, Russia or China without resorting to nuclear weapons.

Former Member

Don't forget our undeclared and uninspected arsenals of chemical and biological weaponry as well.

Former Member

Are they tactical or strategic weapons?

Former Member

All depends on how you choose to deliver them. Im sure the US MIC can fill longrange missiles as easily as it could fill battlefield artillery shells, granades, or any other such tactical delivery vehicle.

Former Member

The USA doesn't have the biggest military, just the highest percentage of GDP spent on their military. The largest military belongs to China, and the best trained military belongs to the UK.

Former Member

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military

The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than Russia's, which places second.

The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for two-thirds), dollar for dollar.

Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money not spoken for by pre-existing obligations. [1] (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp)

A scary thought really the amount of money the US spends on the miltary it is ridicullous!

Former Member

Originally posted by marv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military



A scary thought really the amount of money the US spends on the miltary it is ridicullous!

all hail ceaser ...

Former Member

Matadore

"Vietnam , correct? The American military never lost the Vietnam war, they lost it in Washington due to the cowardice of the political elite. The US destroyed the Tet offensive, and with 100,000 extra troops they could have coonquered the North and secured it against communism."


You are 100% correct here Matadore.

Former Member

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
You are 100% correct here Matadore.

No, he is 100% wrong. America hasn’t lost the war, America’s won it. American State has lost. Not cowards in offices but brave anti-war activists have won the war. They said ‘enough! We don’t want anymore American boys and Vietnamese boys to kill each other for politicians’ ambitions. Stop this mincer machine!’. That was one of the greatest Victories of all times.

Former Member

LabRat

No, technically speaking, we did not lose the Vietnam War, militarily speaking, we quit.


You are saying that the anti-war protestors "won" the war. The protestors did not help the plight of the soldiers in Vietnam. How familiar are you with the activities of some of the Vietnam War protestors LabRat? Do you realize that some of thes so-called "peace protestors" ALSO SPIT on returning Vietnam Veterans and physically assaulted them? Did you realize that the protesting activities also contributed to our pulling out of the war due to perceived lack of American public support.

If you consider that quitting the war was a "victory" well, that is your opinion. Actually, I don't think it was a victory for us, but an abject failure on a political level. We sacrificed a hell of a lot of soldiers for an effort that we did not see through until the end. THAT was the problem. In that respect, it was failure. Not because of military failure, but because of failure of support from LBJ, McNamara, and others.

Former Member

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
No, technically speaking, we did not lose the Vietnam War, militarily speaking, we quit.

You still use these ‘we’, ‘us’ words. Who the ‘we’ are? Presidents and senators fighting for top chairs, three-stars generals fighting for fourth star, military-industrial complex not able to survive at fair competition and demanding taxpayers’ money to sell their crappy things or ordinary American parents whose only son was killed in jungle of a distant country they never heard the name before and that never threatened America? And if their boy’s life is saved due to efforts of anti-war protestors it is not a victory? Or you think if instead of their live boy they had his grave decorated with medals, drums, banners and other patriotic crap they would be happier?

Former Member

when everything is taken into account, the usa does hav the strongest,most capable armed forces in the world. they are the most technologically advanced in military technology and spend plenty of time blowing up houses etc. and no, ther arent a billion people in the us armed forces, ther is a population of 265 million in the us, so i find it doubtful. they hav the biggest nuclear stockpile, which makes them a formidable force, although they'l never be used because of the concept of the nuclear deterrent(i.e u nuke me and il nuke u, then we all die). countries like russia and china, wher ther is conscription, will hav bigger armed forces, but compared to the us, wud be ineffectiv.

btw, the vietnam war is over and long gone.ther wer many factors to be considered, and its not a simple the usa won or the usa lost situation

Former Member

What we're saying is, that in a conventional war without nukes, the USA isn't the almighty godlike country it believes itself to be.
The technology they rely on so much is mishandled by incompetent troops, a good deal of their troops are totally unprofessional, and even their "high technology" weapnry is inferior in many aspects to European and Chinese hardware.

Take the British Challenger 2 tank for example. The gun, is completely controlled by computer, like the M1A2 Abrahms. The difference is ours is newer. The fire control system on a Challenger 2 enables it to hit a target the size of a football, from a distance of 5 miles. At night.
The frontal armour is able to withstand a direct hit from all known forms of shell and missile currently in existence.
The side armour is still able to withstand direct hits from virtually all Eastern Bloc tank ordanance.

And we know how to use them. What do you think would happen if the USA attempted to invade mainland Europe??? Imagine their troop ships landing at a British beach and facing a barrage of fire from tanks they cannot destroy because they ae 5 miles away?

Former Member

Ok let me say now that the US could not invade and beat China nor with north Korea. For one they wouldn't the US can't cope with that many deaths as like in Vietnam the public wouldn't stand for it.
China has a very good military not just old soviet equipment they get new russian equipment which is as good or better than US/Taiwan equipment they also get US equipment from Israel and what if France or Germany decide to abandon the embargo and sell military stuff to china. Note: China has the fastest growing GDP, they are the next superpower, do you think the US will sit back and let this happen?
North Korea has quite good technology and some nukes and has the support of the population to wage a people's war.
I think people here underestimate how hard it is to invade a hostile nation, sure on a neural flat ground the US could win where armies just face up and blow eachother up but that doesn't happen. from Iraq also, you can see how hard an occupation is especially when the US doesn't have enough troops there to make the country safe.

Former Member

i agree with that, in a world where there were no politics or world media, the US would do well. sure, they're not the most effective force but they hav the resourcess to keep on trying until they get bored. i do think that the american mentality is stupid, that they're untouchable, no-one is. i'd hoped that afta 9/11 they wud hav seen this, of course now that iraq has gone tits-up, bt they stil dnt wana let go of it. if china became a superpower, wudnt america only hav itself to blame? im pretty sure that the chinese economy has a large sector of american supported and financed industry.
and an invasion of europe is too unpredicatble without knowing circumstances,such as public support,reasons for invading etc. i mean, if european countries had attacked the united states or lynched n slaughtered us nationals, then i expect use of heavy force or higher tiers wud be acceptable.

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
Imagine their troop ships landing at a British beach and facing a barrage of fire from tanks they cannot destroy because they ae 5 miles away?

Imagine a single soldier with laser designator. Imagine a B-52 with missles. Put the two together and you have a fairly basic means of nullifying the Challenger...

Or, how about you imagine an Apache Helicopter.

You see for most weapons there are serveral counter measures.

This whole discussion in conjecture anyway, the US has military might, enormous military might. All they lack is the political will to use it to its capability. If they ever did that then there are very few countries who would be able to stop it effectively and it would come down to the guerilla warfare. As a nation which has disarmed the population, we'd be fucked. It's the one area where I agree with our US cousins about the "right to bear arms"...

Former Member

its true, with all the 'smart' weapons around, there will always be a counter-weapon to a supposedly unstoppable one. if ther was an invasion of europe by the americans, ther wud be little chance of any1 stopping them, because basically, most european countries hav meager military forces compared to seasoned forces like the uk or us, which hav seen recent action(hey, im not sayin the us armed forces are a mean lean fighting machine). also, the uk armed forces are the best trained yes, but due to foreign policy and commitments made to foreign governemnts, our forces are sparsely stretched across the world. also, the idea of giving everyone weapons isnt the best- a gungho attitude is last thing needed, peopl taking the law into ther own hands is the worst thing that can happen.only giv guns who hav the mental and physical capability to use them properly.

but back to the main idea of this thread, the power of a military. basically, wen it comes to guerilla warfare, armies are incapable of stopping it effectively without looking like bastards int eh population. for example, because of the media presence in iraq they hav to do everything to look squeaky clean- hearts and minds etc. however, if ther was no media then the guerillas cud be tackled better, like the skirmishes around falluja. the only way to beat them is to take them head on, like the americans did, but with the earts and minds approach it makes an army very inneffectiv

Former Member

Originally posted by kingging
most european countries hav meager military forces compared to seasoned forces like the uk or us,

I think that the bigger problem is one of logistics...

Former Member

logistics in what situation?

Former Member

The Americans might be too strong for most military forces in the world (one at a time though...), but other than destroy other countries' military and infrastructure there is little else they could do.

If their piss-poor record concerning Iraq is anything to go by, the US would be completely incapable to keep control on the ground in most places- in particular if they're engaged in several countries at once. They'd be able to bomb from the air and kill civilians and fighters alike, but they'd never be able sustain an occupation anywhere near what the Nazis achieved; or the Romans; or any other Empire throughout history.

The US army is very good at killing everything in its path on a grand scale (whether it is a threat or not) but when it comes to fighting guerrillas or keeping grip on countries it occupies or attempts to occupy its performance becomes appallingly poor.

Former Member

the thing is, in occupations by the nazi,romans british or japanese, they made the citizens of the occupied country second class. they controlled the media which was viewed at home(in the cases of the british/nazi/japanese empires) or in the case of the romans, no-one cared. the reason they cud keep control is that if a roman solider or a nazi soldier was killed, they'd jus round up sum peopl and hav them shot. in the case of the nazis, wen a jewish criminal in paris killed a german journalist, he ordered ernst rohm, head of the SA, to lynch jewish synagogues,shops and homes, resulting in many jewish dead a better idea is that of the warsaw uprising, wen near the end of the war polish rebels tried to revolt against the nazis; of course, the nazis superior firepower easily defeated the poles, and the nazis took retribution by killing 100,000 poles, sending 150,000 to labour camps and burning warsaw(polands capital) to the ground. if america tried this in baghdad, they'd get kicked out of the UN, and george bush tried for war crimes, as well as domestic and foreign support for them disapearing completely. i mean, they tried heavy handed tactics in fallujah and got slated by other nations for being too violent and killing too many civilians. thats why america has failed to successfully occupy iraq or afghanistan

Former Member

Partly that, but partly also is the fact that neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis see the Americans as the liberators they claim to be, but rather as a hostile, illegal occupier with its own agenda. There's a lot of distrust and anger towards them, so a lot of people are prepared to take up arms against coallition troops.

Must say that I understand that sentiment.

Former Member

yeh, i agree totally. americas foreign policy is stupid, i mean, they think they can go all around the world 'solving' problems for the human good, when they actually create more, such as increased terrorist activity, or at least more visible activity, in the name of freedom. most of the ideals they claim to protect they dnt hav

Former Member

Actually the British empire was nothing like the Japanese or German.
We treated our subjects as near enough equals, gave them education and infrastructure.
We built an empire as it should be, not the mess the yanks are trying to make.

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
Actually the British empire was nothing like the Japanese or German.
We treated our subjects as near enough equals, gave them education and infrastructure.
We built an empire as it should be, not the mess the yanks are trying to make.

slave trade?slave trade?

Former Member

Originally posted by kingging
logistics in what situation?

Getting men and equipment into the theatre.

Europe just doesn't have the capability to do this easily...

If you can't get the forces there, they aren't gonna be able to fight.

Former Member

Originally posted by crossfire
slave trade?slave trade?

The British Empire abolished slavery, and was the first country to do so. Then America's south wanted lots of slaves, and the north didn't, and then Spain kept shipping over slaves from the ivory coast illegally because it was actually under british occupation (i think) and therefore protected. Anyway, don't know what happened to spain, but America had a war over it (american civil war) and the north won, thus the south lost the rights to have slaves. Mind you, if you go there even today racism is ever present.

Former Member

wtf?!?! r u serious? hav u neva read a history book. did u not see hw the japanese went around conquering china,burma and other eastern states, then went around killing them for petty crimes.also the masacres in manchuria and other places,and the slave trade is a gd point.

and you sed that in the british empire everyone was treatd equal...wel erm, if by equal, u mean everyone with white skin and a large sum of cash in ther pocket was treated equally, then hell yeh, ther was equality. but if you werent white and were poor, then life was bad. basically, the british could do wat they wanterd, they only wanted the resources(like kenyan diamonds or tea from india), which they could trade and make money. the peopl they occupied wer further down the list. they had no leash basically durin ther occupation. maybe life wud hav been slightly beta if u bent down and took n accepted everythin they gave you,forsaking ur old culture n customs, then maybe