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.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Who Does Not Believe The US Has The Most Superior Military?
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
Well, a large conflict would likely draw the support of many other countries as allies so I don't think it's really as simple as who has the most superior military. I think that technologically we have the advantage but in sheer numbers of troops I think China is probably ahead.
Actually I had no idea - I didn't think JSF was even flying yet. How is it related to Eurofighter?
I think Britain was going to buy a bunch of the JSFs for the new carriers, but they were backing out beacue you wouldn't give us the code for the avionics systems, which means we'd have to spend months reverse engineering the thing.
maddogchen
Diamond Member
The US has a superior military now but not the will to use it to its utmost abilities. China in 20 years will have a far superior military because they have the will to annihilate everything and everyone, fck the civilian casualties.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
Blasphemy!!! :| The best thing about the Lotus Elise is that it is extremely light weight. Add 1000lbs to it and you have a Toyota Corolla.
Vonkhan
Diamond Member
You really can't make a blanket statement like "___ has the most superior military"
You have to specify a context
In a conventional war, the US military will come out on top
However, in urban combat the US military will take a beating - no matter how much tech you throw into the fight, it's the guy who's dug in deepest who'll come out on top.
In an insurgency situation, the US will lose. Sad to say, but the US has very limited experience in COIN (counter-insurgency). Israel, Russia and India have decades of COIN ops under their belt and anyone from their armed forces will tell you that it's impossible to "win". The closest scenario that can be described as a win for a government over an insurgency was in the Punjab, India where the Khalistan movement was quelled -not by the Army- but by local police forces.
The problem with the US military is the US population which has no stomach for casualties.
You have to specify a context
In a conventional war, the US military will come out on top
However, in urban combat the US military will take a beating - no matter how much tech you throw into the fight, it's the guy who's dug in deepest who'll come out on top.
In an insurgency situation, the US will lose. Sad to say, but the US has very limited experience in COIN (counter-insurgency). Israel, Russia and India have decades of COIN ops under their belt and anyone from their armed forces will tell you that it's impossible to "win". The closest scenario that can be described as a win for a government over an insurgency was in the Punjab, India where the Khalistan movement was quelled -not by the Army- but by local police forces.
The problem with the US military is the US population which has no stomach for casualties.
fallenangel99
Golden Member
The U.S. would obviously win a battle with Country A with Army A stationed here, here, and there. However, if you talk about urban warfare, counter-intelligence, etc. I'm not so sure if the U.S. Armed Forces can beat other well-experienced forces such as of Israel, Russia, etc. (I don't think there is a chance ever that the US would fight our allies..)
It's all about knowing your terrain, your enemies, and excellent planning. Case in point - Israel vs Hezbollah last summer (yes, we know Israel was trying to minimize civilian losses). Oh yeah, take out the Air Force, and the fight is a lot, lot tougher.
Besides, didn't a top official once say that wars of the future will be small-scale, urban warfare?
It's all about knowing your terrain, your enemies, and excellent planning. Case in point - Israel vs Hezbollah last summer (yes, we know Israel was trying to minimize civilian losses). Oh yeah, take out the Air Force, and the fight is a lot, lot tougher.
Besides, didn't a top official once say that wars of the future will be small-scale, urban warfare?
smack Down
Diamond Member
The willingness to attack civilians has little to do with the capabilities of the weapon systems.
China can't even take Taiwan because their navy is such a joke. We could eliminate their ability to wage war after a week with a carrier battle. Until china develops a way to defeat our stealth bombers, and cruse missles they have no chance against the US.
Yes, we are not good at occupying 3rd world countries. Not because we couldn't do it if we wanted to just that there is no point.
jjzelinski
Diamond Member
Two things:
The questions does not take into account proportion (i.e. Israel may have a more elite force per capita than we do). It just asks who has the most "elite" force, not the most "powerful" or "effective". I think there's a difference, although it may be one of semantics.
and....
The question is pointless anyways because our biggest weaknesses are our economy and public opinion.
The questions does not take into account proportion (i.e. Israel may have a more elite force per capita than we do). It just asks who has the most "elite" force, not the most "powerful" or "effective". I think there's a difference, although it may be one of semantics.
and....
The question is pointless anyways because our biggest weaknesses are our economy and public opinion.
jjzelinski
Diamond Member
Dug, this has been bugging me for ages. Where the hell does your sig quote come from? I know it's a movie or something but I can't for the life of me remember what? And just so you know this has been bugging me for upwards of a year... 🙂
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
