America - The richest country or not? - General

[QUOTE=Uncle_Earl;18589212]america isnt a country. its a continent. sheesh, what a great education you guys have![/QUOTE] Nice grammar. It just so happens that "The United States of America" is the only country in the American continents to have "America" in it's name. "The United States of" is unnecessary; no one calls Russia "The Russian Federation." [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18588219]Exactly. The US may hold a massive number advantage, but we have better-trained infantry. At balanced numbers, we'd probably win a battle, but considering how many troops the US could muster, a balanced battle wouldn't happen.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. On a modern battlefield, infantry training isn't as important as strategy, logistics, or coordination - and let's face it, the US military as a whole has much more combat experience than the UK's.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;18589347]Not necessarily. On a modern battlefield, infantry training isn't as important as strategy, logistics, or coordination - and let's face it, the US military as a whole has much more combat experience than the UK's.[/QUOTE] US: Hasn't fought a war against regular infantry (not rebels/guerrillas) since WW2. UK: Fought a war with regular infantry just around 30 years ago (Falklands). You seriously think the US has more combat experience? It's one thing to fight armed citizens who don't know how to fight well, but fighting well-trained soldiers is a different matter. You also have to remember that several wars America fought in the past against well-trained infantry led to mostly defeats and heavy losses (War of 1812), and other wars showed America didn't fair well recently in modern warfare (WW2 against the Germans, Vietnam, etc.)

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18589609]US: Hasn't fought a war against regular infantry (not rebels/guerrillas) since WW2.[/QUOTE] ...Except Iraq's army, the NVA, the NKA, and the Chinese army, all of which were much, much more powerful than Argentina's military. The Falklands war wasn't even really a war. The US inflicted and took exponentially larger casualties fighting the Vietcong alone.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;18589641]...Except Iraq's army, the NVA, the NKA, and the Chinese army, all of which were much, much more powerful than Argentina's military. The Falklands war wasn't even really a war.[/QUOTE] the first two aren't very likely

[QUOTE=Conscript;18589693]the first two aren't very likely[/QUOTE] ...Aren't very likely what? Conventional armies? Iraq's military was well funded and the Republican guard were well-trained. They also outnumbered US forces. They had tanks and air support both times and were soundly defeated both times. The North Vietnamese were about as well off for the time - they even received large supplies of advanced anti-aircraft missiles and top-of-the-line jets from Russia.

ITT, people argue about things that they can't change

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18589609]US: Hasn't fought a war against regular infantry (not rebels/guerrillas) since WW2. UK: Fought a war with regular infantry just around 30 years ago (Falklands). You seriously think the US has more combat experience? It's one thing to fight armed citizens who don't know how to fight well, but fighting well-trained soldiers is a different matter. You also have to remember that several wars America fought in the past against well-trained infantry led to mostly defeats and heavy losses (War of 1812), and other wars showed America didn't fair well recently in modern warfare (WW2 against the Germans, Vietnam, etc.)[/QUOTE] : / You serious? The Falklands war was fought against conscripts. They were by no means well-trained. We nearly lost the war for christs sake.

[QUOTE=mangabeaner;18589013]true. If we go down slope, so do they[/QUOTE] They are still entirely dependent on us and we can depend on whoever the fuck we want, only China happens to be the cheapest. If we switched around some business tactics in a few years China will be back where it started. [editline]06:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18589609] You seriously think the US has more combat experience? It's one thing to fight armed citizens who don't know how to fight well, but fighting well-trained soldiers is a different matter. You also have to remember that several wars America fought in the past against well-trained infantry led to mostly defeats and heavy losses (War of 1812), and other wars showed America didn't fair well recently in modern warfare (WW2 against the Germans, Vietnam, etc.)[/QUOTE] That's weird I heard somewhere we won WWII hmm. That and we did it without losing 10 men to 1 German *cough*Soviets*cough*.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;18589755]...Aren't very likely what? Conventional armies? Iraq's military was well funded and the Republican guard were well-trained. They also outnumbered US forces. They had tanks and air support both times and were soundly defeated both times. The North Vietnamese were about as well off for the time - they even received large supplies of advanced anti-aircraft missiles and top-of-the-line jets from Russia.[/QUOTE] aren't likely that they're better then argentina's army yea iraq's military was well funded with purchased old soviet surplus. it was also incompetent also the north vietnamese army was highly irregular and was only a state-sponsored militia. their equipment, too, was largely dated. [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;18589967] That and we did it without losing 10 men to 1 German *cough*Soviets*cough*.[/QUOTE] might be because we didn't have to fight off a massive blitzkrieg

Maybe not one of THE richest, but it's definitely up there.

[url=http://www.usdebtclock.org/]Here.[/url] Not sure how legit the site is but you can get an idea from it.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 5 years?

[QUOTE=Conscript;18590062]might be because we didn't have to fight off a massive blitzkrieg[/QUOTE] Yeah and it would have been a very successful blitzkrieg if it wasn't for climate and the massive amount of soldiers Stalin and his generals sacrificed. That isn't the point anyway, the US was successful against German regulars and I don't know how they weren't.

[QUOTE=Conscript;18590062]aren't likely that they're better then argentina's army yea iraq's military was well funded with purchased old soviet surplus. it was also incompetent also the north vietnamese army was highly irregular and was only a state-sponsored militia. their equipment, too, was largely dated.[/QUOTE] Iraq used T-70s and 90s era Soviet jets. The republican guard were excellent soldiers - far better than most that come out of the middle east. Vietnam was using SA7s, SA11s, Mi-8s and MiG 21s fresh out of Russia. Their equipment was by no means dated.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;18590547]Yeah and it would have been a very successful blitzkrieg if it wasn't for climate and the massive amount of soldiers Stalin and his generals sacrificed. That isn't the point anyway, the US was successful against German regulars and I don't know how they weren't.[/QUOTE] wrong. the russian winter would have been meaningless if the soviets didn't have a scorched earth policy, which turned a logistical juggle into a nightmare and prevented winter gear and other supplies from getting to the front.

They've never been that rich.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18580639] America isn't either though. Don't they have like a 100 trillion dollar debt to China alone?[/QUOTE] You're misunderstand the concept of debt between nations. We may owe other countries almost 10 trillion dollars, but because national debt has no due date it doesn't count against us. Also, we COULD pay off all of our debt in just a couple days. All we have to do is print that much money. The value of the american dollar would be equivalent to the penny at that point, but the debt honestly means nothing.

:munch: What a great thread. A real eletist shitstorm we have brewing here. Goddamn, this turkey is good. :munch:

[QUOTE=Sector 7;18590889]Iraq used T-70s and 90s era Soviet jets. The republican guard were excellent soldiers - far better than most that come out of the middle east. Vietnam was using SA7s, SA11s, Mi-8s and MiG 21s fresh out of Russia. Their equipment was by no means dated.[/QUOTE] t-70s are horribly obselete by today's standards, owing much to computers and other advancements. also a highly trained guard doesn't mean very much when you can blow the fuck out of them with pure firepower, an ability the US hasn't faced yet, but is a huge part in modern warfare. Iraq did not have pin-pointing jet bombers and many helicopter gunships. also there were no 90s soviet jets. the USSR didn't exist. regardless its airforce is powerless unless against other 3rd world countries (like it was for) when it comes down to it, iraq had just another 3rd world army. funded much, by 3rd world standards, but not near the scale of a superpower it by all means was, at least in the more important parts of it. equipment for infantry came from a variety of eras, and the tank corp (if you could call it that) was too small and it, too, came from a variety of eras. vietnam had a people's army, it was by no means conventional or professional. iraq is a much better comparison, but it still isn't a very good one.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;18589755]...Aren't very likely what? Conventional armies? Iraq's military was well funded and the Republican guard were well-trained. They also outnumbered US forces. They had tanks and air support both times and were soundly defeated both times. The North Vietnamese were about as well off for the time - they even received large supplies of advanced anti-aircraft missiles and top-of-the-line jets from Russia.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting 10+ nations made up the assault force of Desert Storm. It wasn't like it was an American-only operation. You're also forgetting the NATO forces (especially US and UK) had a shitload of better technologies than the Iraqis. The Republican Guard were elite guard as their name implies, not soldiers that fought frequently on the frontlines. As for your second point, that's like saying you could give a medieval soldier a jet and expect him to use it in war. North Vietnamese were mostly militia and guerrillas, not trained soldiers. It doesn't matter what technologies Russia gave them, they didn't know how to use them very well. Vietcong won by pure skill and knowledge of the land. They weren't fucking around, and they wanted to prove that. Communist China was still non-existent at this time, since they were fighting the Chinese Civil War. It was the PLA that fought American forces, and they were mostly armed citizens and militiamen with few regulars. On that note, wouldn't America be considered inferior in the Cold War to Russia? Russia was substantially larger and had an excellent military, but then again, no real military engagements ever happened between the US and Russia, so it really can't be said if Russia's or America's troops were better. [editline]09:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;18590889]Vietnam was using SA7s, SA11s, Mi-8s and MiG 21s fresh out of Russia. Their equipment was by no means dated.[/QUOTE] Being militia, they didn't know how to use the technology very well.

[QUOTE=MCPeePants;18582147]Military budgets, worldwide. [img]http://www.militarybudget.info/images/WorldwideChart.png[/img] headshotttttt[/QUOTE] Soooo. If the US has 47% then what does 100% symbolize? In other words 47% of what.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;18589967]That's weird I heard somewhere we won WWII hmm. That and we did it without losing 10 men to 1 German *cough*Soviets*cough*.[/QUOTE] The Soviet foot army then got "what was left over" from recruits. Air Forces, vehicular forces, etc. got the best men, infantry armies got the worst. Let's see, Battle of Monte Cassino. Guess what happened? US had over 90,000 troops there attacking 80,000 Germans. US salvoed the area with hundreds of bombs, yet the US lost over 90,000 troops out of a 105,000-man Allied force, while the Germans only lost 20,000.

It's all of the military spending in the world I think. Half of it is the US, because we're players like that. [editline]08:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18592006]The Soviet foot army then got "what was left over" from recruits. Air Forces, vehicular forces, etc. got the best men, infantry armies got the worst. Let's see, Battle of Monte Cassino. Guess what happened? US had over 90,000 troops there attacking 80,000 Germans. US salvoed the area with hundreds of bombs, yet the US lost over 90,000 troops out of a 105,000-man Allied force, while the Germans only lost 20,000.[/QUOTE] Wow they're bad because they lost a lot of men fighting a defending force in one battle?

America isn't the richest. They're in so much fucking debt it's ridiculous.

I think when it comes to countries, the right term to use isn't "Rich"; "Resourceful" would be the correct term. But to discuss this further you need to define the meaning of "Money" at a nation-to-nation level, from an abstract economic point of view, money defines who "serves" who; or how many goods and/or services everyone around you "owes" you in exchange for your money, for the lack of a better term. The value of money is also subjective to the situation you're in, a bottle of water might be worth 1.50$ in a city, but if you're fresh out of a desert you'd pay 1,000$ for that very bottle if it saves your life. In essence, a capitalistic government collects taxes, those are the goods/services the individual/firm owes to the government/society as a whole; as in, you work one day for 2$, government takes 1$ as taxes; next day you pave the street and you get paid 1$ by the government; what really happened was that you paved the street for the government for free. So, again in essence, currency is a resource that can be exchanged for various goods/services; but at an international level, where different countries adopt different economic systems, things look slightly different. For instance, at the core, Marxism is simply capitalism with a 100% high tax rate (in which case the government provides rations to the people, as in food/cloth coupons), the result is, no private properties and complete government control over the country's resources. This means that the human population is another resource to be counted when measuring how resourceful a country is, how big of a workforce defines a lot in terms of productivity; and like any other resource, this can be (and often gets) misused. A socialistic country (like China) is another economic model that derives from Marxism, taxes are much higher than your average capitalistic nation's, certain social classes are taxed more than others (a farmer pays thrice the taxes with 1/6th the income of an average citizen), private properties (as in private cars) are attainable but much harder to obtain compared to capitalistic countries, some might think that this is a harsh system, but they have it working with 1.3 billion citizens to deal with. Under such rule, your worth to society (and thus your value/wealth) is governed by your productivity, this creates a overwhelming force of crucial competition that drives their markets wild, and you can see the result, the keyboard I'm typing this on was probably manufactured in china. Their markets aren't completely free either, the state owns a great share within large enterprises, and although they don't use this to control the prices of different goods; competition mainly revolves around using cheaper components and further optimizing the production lines to cut production costs, that's how they undercut prices so often. If you take the average income of a country's population as a measure if wealth, USA would probably win (assuming that you exclude the Arabian gulf area), but if you take productivity as a measure then China would most assertively come first. From my point of view, USA might be wealthy, but China is much more resourceful; and is catching up at a terrifying speed in the wealth department.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;18592011]Wow they're bad because they lost a lot of men fighting a defending force in one battle?[/QUOTE] The US had other heavy losses like this. They came in rather late though, which is why they had an "easy" time in the war, but that's like deciding not to kill a lion when it's strong, but to wait a while, then killing when it's wounded, and then calling it a fair hunt.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;18591978]Soooo. If the US has 47% then what does 100% symbolize? In other words 47% of what.[/QUOTE] Of all Military budgets, worldwide, combined. Edit: My automerge... :argh:

[QUOTE=strongreaction;18592061]America isn't the richest. They're in so much fucking debt it's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] The flat number seems large to you but in the eyes of nations the number has a lot less meaning.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18580616]America is a superpower due to it's army's sizes and the nuclear weapons it has. It's rate of production of goods and supplies also makes it a power. However, militarily, America is inferior to several nations, notably China in terms of number and the UK in terms of training.[/QUOTE] The U.S arguably has the best army in the world, based on technology alone. They spend billions of defense every year, and they have some amazing ways to kill people because of that.

Funny how we've turned this thread into an anti-American elitist group vs. an American elitist group with both sides battering at each other with no result.