Who Does Not Believe The US Has The Most Superior Military?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Frackal
BTW, if the US ever decided to REALLY become militant and expansionist, the way most countries have been historically, or are currently, all of those people in Europe and other regions who sniff and moan about the United States would then finally have something legitimate to complain about.


hell yea, i'm still waiting for my cheap iraqi oil!
$3 a gallon are you f*&king me?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Ah, another thread where we get to see just who hates America.

America has the "most superior" military, and anyone who disputes that ... well, you're right up there with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and those who believe George Bush himself sets your price at the gas pump.
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Ah, another thread where we get to see just who hates America.

So debate on the topic is expressing the thoughts of a terrorist?

If you really believe that, you're far, far, far stupider than i had thought, and believe me, i already thought you were pretty retarded :roll:
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: dug777
So debate on the topic is expressing the thoughts of a terrorist?

Did I say that? :confused:

If you really believe that, you're far, far, far stupider than i had thought, and believe me, i already thought you were pretty retarded :roll:

You will believe whatever you want to believe, and I'll do the same. Ain't America grand?
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dug777
So debate on the topic is expressing the thoughts of a terrorist?

Did I say that? :confused:

You stated that if you debate this topic, it means you hate america :p

I'm making the grand assumption that 'hating america' equates to 'being a terrorist, or harbouring terrorist thoughts' in your mind ;)

 
S

SlitheryDee

America definitely has the strongest military right now. We will probably even have the strongest military in 20 years.

I'm starting to believe that what we have now, or even what we have in the next century doesn't mean much at all. I've never been a history buff, but I found a book called "The Last 2 Million Years" published by The Reader's Digest sometime in the 1970's. Included within it are the truncated histories of all the major known civilizations of the earth at the time. I am proud of my country, but a look at history proves to be quite sobering.

Many many nations have risen to previously unheard of levels of power. Each was greater in power and influence than the last. Some lasted longer than others, but all eventually succumbed to invaders, or to themselves and then to invaders.

I dunno where I'm going with this, but the fact that so many nations for which so many lives were sacrificed have disappeared as political entities is distressing to me. I find it hard to invest myself in something that history shows to be transient.
 
S

SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: evolvedbullet
Originally posted by: Eghck
Vietnam has the best military because the US lost the Vietnam war :laugh:

Weren't they the first army to us Guerrilla tactics on the US?

The US used guerrilla tactics on the British in the Independence war, and then used them on itself in the civil war. I guess the US would be the first to use Guerrilla tactics on the US.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Dean
I don't think anyone should include Nuclear Arsenals in this discussion, as everyone knows they will never be used by a country that has them. It's simply suicidal.

As for Conventional Power you have to rank the US first. Don't anyone think for a second that Russia is a pushover though. All that oil money is getting funneled somewhere, and not to the people there. Russia's rocket tech is the best in the world, so any attack on them could be futile.

Russia's rocket tech is not the best, and hasn't been since the 1960's.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I still think everyone's interpreting the question wrong. "Most elite" requires that proportion be taking into account, meaning a judgment should be founded on a per-capita basis. Since that is what the question was (not "who has the most powerful military") then the U.S. should not be at the top of the list. For our military's size, the vast majority of it's members are not "elite." I'm in the military and I'm sure as sh!t not elite, nor are 99% of the people I know or have ever met.

Ok you want to talk most elite? SEALS, Rangers, Delta, 160th, Force Recon, Special Forces... need I keep going?

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Ah, another thread where we get to see just who hates America.

America has the "most superior" military, and anyone who disputes that ... well, you're right up there with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and those who believe George Bush himself sets your price at the gas pump.

::claps sarcastically::

Do you have those nationalistic pro-USA magnets on your ford excursion, too?

Classic.
 

Vonkhan

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
8,198
0
71
Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I still think everyone's interpreting the question wrong. "Most elite" requires that proportion be taking into account, meaning a judgment should be founded on a per-capita basis. Since that is what the question was (not "who has the most powerful military") then the U.S. should not be at the top of the list. For our military's size, the vast majority of it's members are not "elite." I'm in the military and I'm sure as sh!t not elite, nor are 99% of the people I know or have ever met.

Ok you want to talk most elite? SEALS, Rangers, Delta, 160th, Force Recon, Special Forces... need I keep going?

hmmm, yet none of the US special forces ever topped a competition like Airborne Africa ...
 

SVT Cobra

Lifer
Mar 29, 2005
13,264
2
0
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I still think everyone's interpreting the question wrong. "Most elite" requires that proportion be taking into account, meaning a judgment should be founded on a per-capita basis. Since that is what the question was (not "who has the most powerful military") then the U.S. should not be at the top of the list. For our military's size, the vast majority of it's members are not "elite." I'm in the military and I'm sure as sh!t not elite, nor are 99% of the people I know or have ever met.

Ok you want to talk most elite? SEALS, Rangers, Delta, 160th, Force Recon, Special Forces... need I keep going?

hmmm, yet none of the US special forces ever topped a competition like Airborne Africa ...

First of all, I do agree that while Delta and the SAS (and GSG9 etc for that matter) are all at the top of the iceberg especially since they train together, are equal, the SAS does have more experience. The US has never needed to use Delta in the manner the SAS has been used.

Second, the whole experience thing goes right out the window when you consider that the US is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The things that all our SF have pulled off are amazing, and those are the ones that have been declassified. They are now doing the things the SAS are known for in the past. Things like the Seals and Green berets in Afghan, Delta in Iraq long before the war started, the 8 person GB squad holding off the platoon of republican guard soldiers etc...


It is worthless to arguer who is more elite, but I'd say now both countries SF's have a lot og experience.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
Originally posted by: UDT89
what confuses me is that most of your most impressive weapons.....atomic bomb, neutron bomb, hydrogen bomb, etc.....were produced just about 50 years ago.

you would think those weapons + 50 years advancement in technology would yield bigger and better weapons.

But you dont hear about them.......

No you don't hear about them... ;)



Seriously what's the point of developing a new hydrogen bomb when the first is perfectly capable of ending the world.

So we mostly focus our time and energy on precision weapons, which already have will be much more useful in the future.

yup, precision weapons are the most useful weapons ever developed. nukes are downright inefficient, and really only useful to keep other people from nuking you. and if someone did nuke us, we'd probably use precision weapons on them rather than nukes.
 

Vonkhan

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
8,198
0
71
Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I still think everyone's interpreting the question wrong. "Most elite" requires that proportion be taking into account, meaning a judgment should be founded on a per-capita basis. Since that is what the question was (not "who has the most powerful military") then the U.S. should not be at the top of the list. For our military's size, the vast majority of it's members are not "elite." I'm in the military and I'm sure as sh!t not elite, nor are 99% of the people I know or have ever met.

Ok you want to talk most elite? SEALS, Rangers, Delta, 160th, Force Recon, Special Forces... need I keep going?

hmmm, yet none of the US special forces ever topped a competition like Airborne Africa ...

First of all, I do agree that while Delta and the SAS (and GSG9 etc for that matter) are all at the top of the iceberg especially since they train together, are equal, the SAS does have more experience. The US has never needed to use Delta in the manner the SAS has been used.

Second, the whole experience thing goes right out the window when you consider that the US is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The things that all our SF have pulled off are amazing, and those are the ones that have been declassified. They are now doing the things the SAS are known for in the past. Things like the Seals and Green berets in Afghan, Delta in Iraq long before the war started, the 8 person GB squad holding off the platoon of republican guard soldiers etc...


It is worthless to arguer who is more elite, but I'd say now both countries SF's have a lot og experience.

Yup, that's why it's also important for SF from different countries to train together, esp. between countries that have insurgency problems like Israel, India, Russia, Philipines, etc. and now the US
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
We don't have the most people, the best trained people, the highest quality people (especially since Buscho and gulf 2.0), etc. What we have is the most money to throw at it so we get some fairly good equipment. Not always the best, the by far the most of what's fairly good.

So we have about the most powerful military because of our nuclear potential and our military spending, but not really the best military.

Man for man I'd put my money on Israel (as a nation), or the Vatican guard (as an individual force).
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I don't know. Person for person, not special forces with lots of high tech gadgets, but regular grunts, and on the average level, I'd say Israeli would be better.

The IDF had their asses handed to them by Hezbullah in conventional warfare. The IDF is not the same as it once was, though they have significant incentive to regain their expertise and will likely to do so in short order, assuming we fund them.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Number1
The US forces are the best equipped and best trained in the world. The US spends more money per capita on defence then any other country in the world.

Yet, the US army got its ass kicked in Vietnam by a bunch of dedicated under equipped hillbillies.

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.


I guess being the best army in the world is not the only factor in deciding who is going to win or loose any given conflict.

No, the rules by which that army has to adhere to is the deciding factor in winning a war. You could take Mohammad Ali, say that he has to fight with a leg and an arm tied to eachother behind his back and he probably won't win (ok, he might ;) ).

In sending the US forces into Iraq, Bush (Rummy or Cheney, whoever pulls the puppet strings) essentially did that. They sent too few troops, dictated where to go and what targets to attack, dictated how it should handle the occupation...etc.

Look at Vietnam. We couldn't attack Hanoi very much, some targets were extremely limited. It was pure political BS.

If we had gone into either situation full-bore, unlimited warfare dictated by *GENERALS* (not politicians) both would have worked flawlessly.

The military is an instrument of the political apparatus of a country, at least for a functioning democracy. The US military cannot and will not ever function independent of the control of the civilian government.

The current state of media coverage makes that control more extensive because of the need to control bad press items such as collateral damage. Tactical decisions have strategic impact in modern times. It's not the best way to wage war, but it's the way we MUST wage war unless we want to go down the road that Germany began in the 1930s.

I'm guessing that you never served in the military, or if you did, it wasn't for very long.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Realistically, in Vietnam, we would have waged a stronger war against Hanoi, hitting real targets instead of hiding from them so that the Chinese didn't enter the war (realistically they already had).

In Iraq we should have not disbanded the army (like the generals said), gone in with 3x the troops (like the generals said), gone after the Fadayeen (as the generals said) instead of going to Baghdad right away (Stalingrad anybody?), shut down the border with Iran (we have a problem with borders), and aggressively gone after militants while enticing the Iraqi army with actual paychecks and not IOUs.

I need to go to bed...

In Vietnam, the key was not necessarily Hanoi as much as Haiphong. The majority of their arms and munitions were entering there, and shutting down that conduit would have significantly hurt the NVA. Remember that we were in the Cold War, however; if we had started unrestricted bombing, the danger was that it would turn hot if we killed some Russians. The Russians could have influenced the North Koreans to cause us even more trouble, for instance. There was a delicate balancing act going on, which is easy to second guess with hindsight, but was probably a little more complicated several years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and with North Korea seizing an intelligence ship and its crew as well as downing a US surveillance aircraft.

In Iraq, not all the generals were in agreement, and some criticize the generals that you laud for being too timid and not voicing their opinions until after they left the service. One reason for a diminished level of troops, especially in the north, was the refusal of Turkey to allow the 4ID to travel overland from the Med -- completely out of our hands. Yes, some mistakes were made -- no plan survives first contact with the enemy. D-Day appears brilliant today, but had Rommel concentrated and committed his armored units early, the invasion could possibly have been defeated. Intelligence is far from perfect and always will be.

The decision to make for Baghdad still makes sense in hindsight, since the same considerations caused the "surge" into the capital right now. Baghdad is the cultural, political, and social nerve center of the country. It is the critical node for the population, the historical seat of the government, and the literal and figurative center of the country -- you control Baghdad, you control Iraq (yes, it's more complicated, but this is an internet forum -- shut up).

Stalingrad is not the appropriate historical comparison from WWII -- it's Moscow. Had the Germans reached and held Moscow, the Ostfront would likely have been MUCH different, as the Russians would have been largely unable to shift forces behind their lines without access to the numerous roads that met in Moscow (and, conversely, the Germans would have been able to better concentrate their forces to continue the offensive).

Also keep in mind that Iraq was looking fairly good at the beginning of 2006. When Al Qaida (FOREIGN ENTITY, remember!) bombed the Samarra mosque, everything went to hell, and all that progress was lost. Without foreign involvement in the conflict: sectarian violence would not be NEARLY as bad; advanced weapons and tactics wouldn't be as proliferated; insurgent groups would be more fractured and less coordinated; and the central government would likely be much more effective (among other things).

As for your comment about the Iraqi Army, there are issues, but they are a dedicated group for the most part. It has been slow building, but there are very effective Iraqi units out there standing shoulder to shoulder with US forces. The biggest hurdle is that when certain units or individuals are being effective, they are effectively targeted by insiders infiltrated by insurgents. YET, volunteers still flock to Iraqi security services to enlist. I admire those that do, much more so than the anti-war zealots in this country who don't believe anything is worth fighting for.
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Number1

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.

I guess a win to you is some caveman putting a homemade bomb in the road, detonating it and running. I?ve always considered winning as my team scoring more than their team.

i don't post on these political threads, but i had to here.

with all due respect. this isn't a sport. it doesn't come down to how many of ours dead vs. theirs. to think of fatalities as mere scorecard points is pretty low.

winning is determined by accomplishing established goals.

the US established the goal to be stability in the country with a new "democratic" government. that has not happened, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen soon.

these insurgents/al queeda types have established a goal to disrupt the US at every turn from succeeding in implementing the US goal and to allow for an extreme level of unstability and fear in the region.

now you tell me, who is closer to their goal?

imho, that answer is the winner.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: xyyz
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Number1

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.

I guess a win to you is some caveman putting a homemade bomb in the road, detonating it and running. I?ve always considered winning as my team scoring more than their team.

i don't post on these political threads, but i had to here.

with all due respect. this isn't a sport. it doesn't come down to how many of ours dead vs. theirs. to think of fatalities as mere scorecard points is pretty low.

winning is determined by accomplishing established goals.

the US established the goal to be stability in the country with a new "democratic" government. that has not happened, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen soon.

these insurgents/al queeda types have established a goal to disrupt the US at every turn from succeeding in implementing the US goal and to allow for an extreme level of unstability and fear in the region.

now you tell me, who is closer to their goal?

imho, that answer is the winner.

You're basically right about the goals, but your perspective is off a little.

The US goal is to aid the Iraqis in establishing a functioning democratic government. Initially, it was to remove Saddam and the Ba'athists from power, which was accomplished. The end state of Iraq does not have to be absolute peace and a complete extermination of the insurgents. US interests would be satisfied with a government able to exercise a measure of control over the insurgents and gangs.

The insurgents have varying goals so it's impossible to lump them together as you attempt to do. For AQ, the main goal is maintaining the status quo which existed once we invaded -- essentially, lawlessness. To say they are "closer to their goal" isn't really the right question to ask to prove your overall point, that "they" are winning. They started their involvement "winning" because the US had to establish something to fill the void when Saddam was toppled.

More pertinent when discussing the US mission is how much progress has been made in Iraq? In other words, are the insurgents "losing" because order is replacing chaos? The Iraqi Army has capable units now, fully able to conduct successful operations. The Iraqi police are hit or miss, primarily because of corruption and political manipulation, but they are not short on recruits. The government is working, albeit slowly and with factional conflict, but if that were a serious problem, Italy would be in trouble. Oil is flowing out, and the country's infrastructure is gradually being fixed. Economic conditions are improving in most parts of the country -- I was shocked by the number of satellite dishes that I saw when flying over Baghdad. Absolutely incredible.

When is the tipping point for US success? That is very hard to assess and much depends on the Iraqi people and US political will. From the reports I've read recently, many Iraqis are deciding to side with their government and the US to rid themselves of insurgents in their neighborhoods. When the majority of the Iraqi people make that decision, there will be little question of an Iraqi, and US, victory. The big question is whether or not the US public will allow the military to stay long enough for that to happen.
 

miri

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2003
3,679
0
76
uh the US spends more on military then the rest of the nations combined, how could the US not have the best military?