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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Who would outright challenge the U.S.? that is the question that must be asked.
According to our President, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all would.

Then again, he also said Saddam hid WMDs in sand dunes, so take that with a grain of salt.

lol
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I'm reasonably sure Switzerland could take on all of Europe any day of the week

LOL, yes, and mice rountinely eat lions.

I see them winning in two scenarios that aren't all that different from each other.

1. They're superior in the same sense as Israel, impossible to beat in a fight of even numbers, so they inflict disproportionate losses and it's just not worth it for the other side to continue the war, since any victory would be pyrrhic at worst, and humiliating/aggravating at best.

With respect, that's a load of rubbish - what makes you think the Swiss are any tougher individually than anyone else? They don't have the best technology, or the best training, or the most experience.

2. Whoever they're fighting gives up first because they're, at least comparatively, weenies.

For the toughest people in europe, you pick the ones who gave enconomic concessions to the Nazis to avoid fighting, rather than the Brits who single handedly fought the entire Axis for two years before America even stepped in? Come on...

Switzerland can have its entire population underground in something like two minutes, all of their highways can be quickly converted for use as runways, the list goes on. Switzerland just cares a whole lot more than its neighbors. The reason terrorists are a problem isn't because they're actually more skilled (though they probably are in certain areas) it's because they're fanatical and refuse to give up or back down unless they know they can return to go all out again at a later, more opportune, date. You just can't beat them unless you kill them all or give them what they want while somehow getting what you want at the same time.

Are you Swiss or something? You're fawning over them like a teenage girl over a rock star...

 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I'm reasonably sure Switzerland could take on all of Europe any day of the week

LOL, yes, and mice rountinely eat lions.

I see them winning in two scenarios that aren't all that different from each other.

1. They're superior in the same sense as Israel, impossible to beat in a fight of even numbers, so they inflict disproportionate losses and it's just not worth it for the other side to continue the war, since any victory would be pyrrhic at worst, and humiliating/aggravating at best.

With respect, that's a load of rubbish - what makes you think the Swiss are any tougher individually than anyone else? They don't have the best technology, or the best training, or the most experience.

2. Whoever they're fighting gives up first because they're, at least comparatively, weenies.

For the toughest people in europe, you pick the ones who gave enconomic concessions to the Nazis to avoid fighting, rather than the Brits who single handedly fought the entire Axis for two years before America even stepped in? Come on...

Switzerland can have its entire population underground in something like two minutes, all of their highways can be quickly converted for use as runways, the list goes on. Switzerland just cares a whole lot more than its neighbors. The reason terrorists are a problem isn't because they're actually more skilled (though they probably are in certain areas) it's because they're fanatical and refuse to give up or back down unless they know they can return to go all out again at a later, more opportune, date. You just can't beat them unless you kill them all or give them what they want while somehow getting what you want at the same time.

Are you Swiss or something? You're fawning over them like a teenage girl over a rock star...

Perhaps he's merely a fan of the idea of a bicycle mounted elite fighting force? Beware the swift brigade of Schwinn Justice!
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I'm reasonably sure Switzerland could take on all of Europe any day of the week

LOL, yes, and mice rountinely eat lions.

I see them winning in two scenarios that aren't all that different from each other.

1. They're superior in the same sense as Israel, impossible to beat in a fight of even numbers, so they inflict disproportionate losses and it's just not worth it for the other side to continue the war, since any victory would be pyrrhic at worst, and humiliating/aggravating at best.

With respect, that's a load of rubbish - what makes you think the Swiss are any tougher individually than anyone else? They don't have the best technology, or the best training, or the most experience.

2. Whoever they're fighting gives up first because they're, at least comparatively, weenies.

For the toughest people in europe, you pick the ones who gave enconomic concessions to the Nazis to avoid fighting, rather than the Brits who single handedly fought the entire Axis for two years before America even stepped in? Come on...

Switzerland can have its entire population underground in something like two minutes, all of their highways can be quickly converted for use as runways, the list goes on. Switzerland just cares a whole lot more than its neighbors. The reason terrorists are a problem isn't because they're actually more skilled (though they probably are in certain areas) it's because they're fanatical and refuse to give up or back down unless they know they can return to go all out again at a later, more opportune, date. You just can't beat them unless you kill them all or give them what they want while somehow getting what you want at the same time.

Are you Swiss or something? You're fawning over them like a teenage girl over a rock star...

Perhaps he's merely a fan of the idea of a bicycle mounted elite fighting force? Beware the swift brigade of Schwinn Justice!

Bwahahahahaha

:laugh:
 

Dean

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,757
0
76
The only reason the US is in a mess with Iraq, is because they decided to give Iraq humane treatment along with the attack. The "were attacking you because we are friends" plan that is still ongoing in Iraq is more of a police action than anything else. There is no war in Iraq.

Any other scenario, well, would be Iraq suffering perhaps millions of casualties along with the mass pouring of refugees into neighboring Countries
 

Dean

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,757
0
76
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.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
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.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Yes it is true that the US has the most superior military in the world, however, we are not really winning wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We can crush their military but we cannot win their hearts and minds, so in effect, do we really win or not? Maybe if we spent a little bit less on the military and more on intelligence, education, scientific research then we may be able to help the military as well.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Yes it is true that the US has the most superior military in the world, however, we are not really winning wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We can crush their military but we cannot win their hearts and minds, so in effect, do we really win or not? Maybe if we spent a little bit less on the military and more on intelligence, education, scientific research then we may be able to help the military as well.

Iraq doesn't really shed any insight into the capability of our military at all because it was misapplied to begin with. Here's an analogy, you can't with a game of bacljack with a handful of dominos.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Id like to know who voted that the US doesnt have the most superior military as of right now. Clearly, some people are just clueless.

edit, and here is one such person now.
Originally posted by: Number1
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.

I doubt you know, as you dont seem to know much. Do you know that the enemy we are fighting right now, plays by no rules? While we still have to. They use kids, women, civilian clothes, etc to do nothing but put out IED's, run and hide like a bunch of pansies.

Getting our butts kicked? Not hardly. Have you been over there? Didnt think so. Keep believing what the bias media writes about, and keep your head in the sand.

Aren't some of the soldiers saying the same thing? Aren't some of the generals saying the same thing? I think they are. We are not doing so well there for a reason. We have invaded their country to force something upon them and you are calling them pansies?

They use the stuff you listed because they do not have M1A2 Abrams tanks or jets to use. If you gave them equipment (not saying we should), then they might not use the stuff you listed.
 

YoungGun21

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2006
2,546
1
81
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?

 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
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.

Whereas the British Military are indeed elite in their entirety. :cool:
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: RichUK
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.

Whereas the British Military are indeed elite in their entirety. :cool:

Booooo...

And screw your english pound=.$47 bullshite too!

And by the way, you have bad food :p


:beer:
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Jawo
Originally posted by: Kelemvor
F-22

[/thread]

At least for the air part...

Theres no question that we have unmatched air superiority. The F-22 can shoot down three planes simultaneously, sight unseen.

The Russians were close, but now even the MiGs or the Sukhois are getting old. We also have the largest navy (most technologically advanced ships).

Urban fighting historically has and continue to be the toughest.


Actually urban fighting has NOT been historically the toughest. Just look at the Germans 60 years ago when they occupied most of Europe. However, they did it by not giving a cra*p about the general population. When a german soldier was killed, they looked for the killer. If they couldn't find him, they killed 20 civilians who could have had ANYTHING to do with the murder. Sometimes when they did find the killer, they killed another 20 civilians just for being "suspicious".... To succeed in occupying a country, the occupying force has to be merciless. Another example is the soviet union 50 years ago with their occupation of the Eastern block. The american public cannot and will not allow their army to act to mercilessly against civilian targets.

WTF? Yeah ok, senseless killing is the way to go about it. Is this what we should learn from Nazi Germany?

"To succeed in occupying a country, the occupying force has to be merciless".

So instead of working with the population (hopefully you don't believe that all of them are the bad guys) and learning about what is going, we should just bomb everything in sight?

You see that this strategy is actually making al-qaeda and our enemies stronger.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
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.

The individual soldier does not need to be elite. The eliteness of our military comes from the weapon systems, logistics, and training. And for just about every class of military hardware our is top of the line if not the best.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
All I know is that I can't afford to purchase a god damned rotary joint for my ASR because my squadron can't afford it...
 

MagicConch

Golden Member
Apr 7, 2005
1,239
1
0
I think the rules of war have changed enough with terrorism that US military by it's organizational structure will have a difficult time responding effectively to many future incidents.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: MagicConch
I think the rules of war have changed enough with terrorism that US military by it's organizational structure will have a difficult time responding effectively to many future incidents.

Not really. Terrorism is not a military phenomena and does not illicit a military reaction in most instances. We made the "mistake" once already, and that is precisely how much we could ever afford to. It *can't* happen again.

America will treat terrorism as a police action from 2003 on out because we now can't afford to misrepresent it any other way.
 

MagicConch

Golden Member
Apr 7, 2005
1,239
1
0
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: MagicConch
I think the rules of war have changed enough with terrorism that US military by it's organizational structure will have a difficult time responding effectively to many future incidents.

Not really. Terrorism is not a military phenomena and does not illicit a military reaction in most instances. We made the "mistake" once already, and that is precisely how much we could ever afford to. It *can't* happen again.

America will treat terrorism as a police action from 2003 on out because we now can't afford to misrepresent it any other way.

You think so? I disagree We have begun a cultural war, not a national war. The force of a people willing to die in suicide to attack us can be controlled with policing? The attack in UK at Glasgow was partially done by a guy from Bangalore, India, hardly an enemy of their country. We are seeing just the beginning imo.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: MagicConch
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: MagicConch
I think the rules of war have changed enough with terrorism that US military by it's organizational structure will have a difficult time responding effectively to many future incidents.

Not really. Terrorism is not a military phenomena and does not illicit a military reaction in most instances. We made the "mistake" once already, and that is precisely how much we could ever afford to. It *can't* happen again.

America will treat terrorism as a police action from 2003 on out because we now can't afford to misrepresent it any other way.

You think so? I disagree We have begun a cultural war, not a national war. The force of a people willing to die in suicide to attack us can be controlled with policing? The attack in UK at Glasgow was partially done by a guy from Bangalore, India, hardly an enemy of their country. We are seeing just the beginning imo.

I think you disagree because we looking at the same problem with a similar set of eyes from dissimilar distances. It doesn't matter if these people are willing to die in a suicide attack because they only do so for westerners to notice them. They aren't inflicting significant losses from a military standpoint. They only succeed because we are willing to notice them. If at some point in the future they are able to manage to duplicate the medioccre scale of 9/11 and exact the same relatively significant military losses we might then be willing to ignore our own sense of humanity and eradicate anyone we percieve to be sympathetic to their anti-western cause but until then they will continue to erode our foundation of "invincibility" until we are forced to contend with the fact that we are not the masters of the universe.

In other words, these guys are only significant in terms of threat because we *make* them significant. It's not a struggle we can win because we've somehow defined win as "convince", as in we must convince these guys that our vision of existence is somehow better than theirs. That's a ***** engagement right there. Never underestimate a persons capacity for tuning out reality in favor of their own convictions.
 

evolvedbullet

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
543
0
0
Speaking of military, I think Russia is coming up on us. They got a T90 now, something that can match the Abrams. And that thing with the missles, I forgot exactly what they made but they made something that is threatening the US. :/
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: evolvedbullet
Speaking of military, I think Russia is coming up on us. They got a T90 now, something that can match the Abrams. And that thing with the missles, I forgot exactly what they made but they made something that is threatening the US. :/

Funny you should mention Russia. I can't begin to express how surprised I was that Putin announced his "retirement." I always expecting something far more sinister from him :) He's got some time yet, let's see if he doesn't disappoint.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: evolvedbullet
Speaking of military, I think Russia is coming up on us. They got a T90 now, something that can match the Abrams. And that thing with the missles, I forgot exactly what they made but they made something that is threatening the US. :/

The T90 is nothing new, it came out 14 years ago.

Russia is doing the equivalent of paper launching weapons systems. They announce new jets, missiles, and tanks, but cannot afford to produce them in any significant numbers.

They definitely are not "coming up on us". Instead, they are losing ground as their inventory of Soviet-era weapons falls into disrepair.