[QUOTE=Sickle;34474621]I love how everyone's like, 'lol iran military xD', in reality, any country with 3 fucking trillion dollars military budget (USA) is going to have a much superior military, Iran even more so, since it has some of the most brilliant minds on the planet, but the government squanders their chances.[/QUOTE]
They all move to Europe or the US so they don't count :v:
[QUOTE=Contag;34474628]They all move to Europe or the US so they don't count :v:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's the alternative to living suppressed by your own government.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34474621]I love how everyone's like, 'lol iran military xD', in reality, any country with 3 fucking trillion dollars military budget (USA) is going to have a much superior military, Iran even more so, since it has some of the most brilliant minds on the planet, but the government squanders their chances.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, the US hasn't even had that much of a superior military since WWII. They got their asses kicked up and down the korean peninsula and their shit absolutely burned in Vietnam. Now they managed to topple some second world middle eastern regimes but can't defend them against comparatively poorly organized insurgencies. The only reason the US managed to get anywhere in the middle east was due to insane airstrike capabilities but when you waste close to half a million dollars everytime you whack 3 or 4 insurgents with their soviet era weaponry somewhere in a hilly mountainside it's no real wonder why the US treasury is in the shit. 1 war versus a poorly developed regime and its following insurgency and one war versus a loosely organized terror group and the richest nation on the planet loses its entire financial power.
"Effective" is the very last adjective I would describe the US Army with.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34474709]To be honest, the US hasn't even had that much of a superior military since WWII. They got their asses kicked up and down the korean peninsula and their shit absolutely burned in Vietnam. Now they managed to topple some second world middle eastern regimes but can't defend them against comparatively poorly organized insurgencies. The only reason the US managed to get anywhere in the middle east was due to insane airstrike capabilities but when you waste close to half a million dollars everytime you whack 3 or 4 insurgents with their soviet era weaponry somewhere in a hilly mountainside it's no real wonder why the US treasury is in the shit. 1 war versus a poorly developed regime and its following insurgency and one war versus a loosely organized terror group and the richest nation on the planet loses its entire financial power.
"Effective" is the very last adjective I would describe the US Army with.[/QUOTE]
Sorry man but you are very uninformed. The US currently has the best military on earth.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;34474338]Why everyone immediately assumes that no-one but western first world countries are the only ones capable of developing military tech?[/QUOTE]
Because the majority of military tech development is happening either in first world nations or some of the better off former warsaw pact nations - which count into the first world anyway these days.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34474709]To be honest, the US hasn't even had that much of a superior military since WWII. They got their asses kicked up and down the korean peninsula and their shit absolutely burned in Vietnam. Now they managed to topple some second world middle eastern regimes but can't defend them against comparatively poorly organized insurgencies. The only reason the US managed to get anywhere in the middle east was due to insane airstrike capabilities but when you waste close to half a million dollars everytime you whack 3 or 4 insurgents with their soviet era weaponry somewhere in a hilly mountainside it's no real wonder why the US treasury is in the shit. 1 war versus a poorly developed regime and its following insurgency and one war versus a loosely organized terror group and the richest nation on the planet loses its entire financial power.
"Effective" is the very last adjective I would describe the US Army with.[/QUOTE]
While US ground forces might not be as well trained or as well equiped as some of their counterparts, they do arguably have the most advances in the most important part of modern warfare - aircraft and power projection.
Insurgencies are fairly problematic to more or less any military, because they can't go all in whacko terror drone everyone. Hell even the nazis who had a considerably harsher hand had problems with insurgencies.
[QUOTE=jip;34474720]Sorry man but you are very uninformed. The US currently has the best military on earth.[/QUOTE]
Nice try.
[QUOTE=jip;34474720]Sorry man but you are very uninformed. The US currently has the best military on earth.[/QUOTE]
They have the best technology.
You get into pretty murky water when you start throwing up superlatives like best.
Does Russia have the 'best' military considering their brutal and ultimately very successful suppression of insurgents in Chechnya, at huge cost to civilian life?
Does the US comparatively fail due to their lackluster insurgency campaigns?
Is the best military one that is efficient and adequate to defend one's sovereign territory and nothing more, as opposed to spending trillions and spiraling into debt?
There is no simple 'best'.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
and in the likely case you do not catch it, I used 'you start throwing up' to imply that your post was comparable to vomit
[QUOTE=Contag;34474733]They have the best technology.
You get into pretty murky water when you start throwing up superlatives like best.
Does Russia have the 'best' military considering their brutal and ultimately very successful suppression of insurgents in Chechnya, at huge cost to civilian life?
Does the US comparatively fail due to their lackluster insurgency campaigns?
Is the best military one that is efficient and adequate to defend one's sovereign territory and nothing more, as opposed to spending trillions and spiraling into debt?
There is no simple 'best'.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
and in the likely case you do not catch it, I used 'you start throwing up' to imply that your post was comparable to vomit[/QUOTE]
They spend the most, they have the most and they are the only country with a blue water capable navy.
They can do anything with their military, they are the best. You don't have to politicize it and then say "well their funding is over..." that does not matter because they are the best and its a fact. Your post is comparable to shit.
[QUOTE=jip;34474756]They spend the most, they have the most and they are the only country with a blue water capable navy.
They can do anything with their military, they are the best. You don't have to politicize it and then say "well their funding is over..." that does not matter because they are the best and its a fact. Your post is comparable to shit.[/QUOTE]
They are the best because I said so, fuck debating.
Did you just rate me agree? I'm making fun of you.
[QUOTE=jip;34474756]They spend the most, they have the most and they are the only country with a blue water capable navy.
They can do anything with their military, they are the best. You don't have to politicize it and then say "well their funding is over..." that does not matter because they are the best and its a fact. Your post is comparable to shit.[/QUOTE]America has a horrible infantry that takes months to adapt to new scenarios, is entirely inefficient, and if it wasn't for supporting forces, would be nothing but red paste.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34474783]America has a horrible infantry that takes months to adapt to new scenarios, is entirely inefficient, and if it wasn't for supporting forces, would be nothing but red paste.[/QUOTE]
Their infantry is well trained, well supplied and is capable of being mechanized. You add in that they would be nothing without supporting forces, every army would which is why you need air superiority, which America does the best in aswell.
Troll somewhere else dude.
[QUOTE=jip;34474799]They're infantry is well trained, well supplied and is capable of being mechanized. You add in that they would be nothing without supporting forces, every army would which is why you need air superiority, which America does the best in aswell.[/QUOTE]Being well trained and armed doesn't do shit when you have terrible strategies and equally terrible tacticians.
And it's "Their" for fucks sake.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34474815]Being well trained and armed doesn't do shit when you have terrible strategies and equally terrible tacticians.
And it's "Their" for fucks sake.[/QUOTE]
Cite your sources, U.S. tactics are among the top in the world and clearly work as intended most of the time.
The toppling of Saddam took a total of 3 weeks.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34474709]To be honest, the US hasn't even had that much of a superior military since WWII. They got their asses kicked up and down the korean peninsula and their shit absolutely burned in Vietnam. Now they managed to topple some second world middle eastern regimes but can't defend them against comparatively poorly organized insurgencies. The only reason the US managed to get anywhere in the middle east was due to insane airstrike capabilities but when you waste close to half a million dollars everytime you whack 3 or 4 insurgents with their soviet era weaponry somewhere in a hilly mountainside it's no real wonder why the US treasury is in the shit. 1 war versus a poorly developed regime and its following insurgency and one war versus a loosely organized terror group and the richest nation on the planet loses its entire financial power.
"Effective" is the very last adjective I would describe the US Army with.[/QUOTE]
We dominated Korea. In fact we pushed so far into North Korea that we got within range of Communist China's artillery, who then threatened to wage war on us. So we left.
Vietnam was a political joke. Ask any aviator from the era about the areas they couldn't launch air strikes in and then talk about the US getting its ass kicked. Had the restrictions been lifted, the entire conflict would have been a cakewalk.
The more we try to be police, the more poorly we do. This is true of virtually any military.
The US has the most powerful military. Hands down, no exceptions.
Better boats, better aircraft, better armor. Infantry are irrelevant. The instant American infantry encounter entrenched enemies, they call an airstrike down. So do other NATO nations you say? Yeah? Who do you think they call? Virtually nobody even HAS close air support aircraft.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34474815]Being well trained and armed doesn't do shit when you have terrible strategies and equally terrible tacticians.
And it's "Their" for fucks sake.[/QUOTE]
They are trained for conventional warfare. Our entire military is still structured around a fictional conflict against Russia or China taking place somewhere in Europe.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34474845]We dominated Korea. In fact we pushed so far into North Korea that we got within range of Communist China's artillery, who then threatened to wage war on us. So we left.
Vietnam was a political joke. Ask any aviator from the era about the areas they couldn't launch air strikes in and then talk about the US getting its ass kicked. Had the restrictions been lifted, the entire conflict would have been a cakewalk.
The more we try to be police, the more poorly we do. This is true of virtually any military.
The US has the most powerful military. Hands down, no exceptions.
Better boats, better aircraft, better armor. Infantry are irrelevant. The instant American infantry encounter entrenched enemies, they call an airstrike down. So do other NATO nations you say? Yeah? Who do you think they call? Virtually nobody even HAS close air support aircraft.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
They are trained for conventional warfare. Our entire military is still structured around a fictional conflict against Russia or China taking place somewhere in Europe.[/QUOTE]
Didn't China push into North Korean territory, push you back to the current border then a ceasefire was signed?
Vietnam was a doomed loss in the first place, guerrilla warfare in the jungle is complete hell for a invading army and the Vietnamese have a long history of being able to defend in this style of warfare and were supported by the Soviets, the same reason they lost in Afghanistan.. NATO was supporting the Mujaheddin.
Better aircraft is debatable due to maintenance and the competition, but definitely out number the enemy.
Better navy in quantity, does not particularly mean they're better then the competition.
All in all, let's just hope Iran and the US will be able to restart diplomatic relations. A war would be catastrophical for both nations. Much of Irans cultural heritage would be destroyed and the US would lose the tiny scraps left of its economy and mostly all of its security by angering even more capable terror cells. The US public would suffer most. Anti-terror rhetoric would be used to slash away even more public rights and transform the country into an ugly policestate hated by virtually every person on the planet. The US doesn't have many friends anymore and even Europe, its most capable ally, is getting tired of the warmongering bullshit.
[QUOTE=jip;34474756]They spend the most, they have the most and they are the only country with a blue water capable navy.
They can do anything with their military, they are the best. You don't have to politicize it and then say "well their funding is over..." that does not matter because they are the best and its a fact. Your post is comparable to shit.[/QUOTE]
You are a bad troll and a worse person.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;34474845]
The more we try to be police, the more poorly we do. This is true of virtually any military.
[/QUOTE]
That is not true at all. A better statement would be that 'forces trained conventionally and with significant emphasis on ethical conduct on war fares poorly as police'
[QUOTE=Contag;34474880]You are a bad troll and a worse person.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
That is not true at all. A better statement would be that 'forces trained conventionally and with significant emphasis on ethical conduct on war fares poorly as police'[/QUOTE]
The U.S. is doing well in Afghanistan and they did well in Iraq as a primary policing/peacekeeping role.
[QUOTE=jip;34474756]They spend the most, they have the most and they are the only country with a blue water capable navy.
They can do anything with their military, they are the best. You don't have to politicize it and then say "well their funding is over..." that does not matter because they are the best and its a fact. Your post is comparable to shit.[/QUOTE]
They can do anything can they?
Can they fight in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time?
many analysts think not.
That is not politicizing it at all.
When you say 'best', that is dependent on criteria. How is that so fucking difficult for you to understand?
Spending the most is not something to say is a good thing when your country is in a debt crisis!
[QUOTE=Contag;34474915]They can do anything can they?
[I](2.)Can they fight in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time?
many analysts think not.[/I]
[I](1.)That is not politicizing it at all.[/I]
When you say 'best', that is dependent on criteria. How is that so fucking difficult for you to understand?
[B](1.)Spending the most is not something to say is a good thing when your country is in a debt crisis![/B][/QUOTE]
1. That has nothing to do with who has the better military.
2. They did, and it worked out fine despite these analysts you have not cited.
[QUOTE=jip;34474834]Cite your sources, U.S. tactics are among the top in the world and clearly work as intended most of the time.
The toppling of Saddam took a total of 3 weeks.[/QUOTE]Saddam is meaningless, I'm talking about using conventional tactics and strategies against an unconventional enemy. Look up Veitnam if you want to see how little the US has learned when it comes to Guerrilla warfare.
[editline]00[/editline]
Yeah, in any conventional war America will always be tops, even if the Military's budget is cut down to an eighth of what it is now.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34474845]We dominated Korea. In fact we pushed so far into North Korea that we got within range of Communist China's artillery, who then threatened to wage war on us. So we left.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I should follow this one up with a snide remark or just give up and link you to some historic facts to make you read them yourself. The US Army was almost pushed into the sea during the communist aggression. They managed to fight back and contain the communists at the division line, but saying that the US "dominated" Korea is [i]profoundly stupid.[/i]
[QUOTE=GunFox;34474845]Vietnam was a political joke. Ask any aviator from the era about the areas they couldn't launch air strikes in and then talk about the US getting its ass kicked. Had the restrictions been lifted, the entire conflict would have been a cakewalk.[/QUOTE]
I am sure Professor Gunfox, Phd in applied probable quantum history. You can't talk this one down. The US Army was completely overwhelmed by a fierce enemy force and had to flee the country after being bashed for 10 years.
You need to lay off the patriotism for your own good. It is insufferable. Reading your post, I am not sure if you are serious, mal-informed or just trolling aswell.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34474928]Saddam is meaningless, I'm talking about using conventional tactics and strategies against an unconventional enemy. Look up Veitnam if you want to see how little the US has learned when it comes to Guerrilla warfare.[/QUOTE]
Look up Afghanistan and Iraq then tell me they arent good at fighting a modern insurgency. Vietnam was YEARS ago, kind of like saying "Soviets used human bullet sponge tactics in WW2 so that reflects their modern Russian counterpart."
[QUOTE=jip;34474912]The U.S. is doing well in Afghanistan and they did well in Iraq as a primary policing/peacekeeping role.[/QUOTE]
Are you for fucking real?
Insurgency support is still significant because the current regime has some pretty big credibility issues.
And you can say that about both states.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34474936]I don't know if I should follow this one up with a snide remark or just give up and link you to some historic facts to make you read them yourself. The US Army was almost pushed into the sea during the communist aggression. They managed to fight back and contain the communists at the division line, but saying that the US "dominated" Korea is [i]profoundly stupid.[/i]
I am sure Professor Gunfox, Phd in applied probable quantum history. You can't talk this one down. The [B]US Army was completely overwhelmed by a fierce enemy force and had to flee the country after being bashed for 10 years.
[/B]
You need to lay off the patriotism for your own good. It is insufferable. Reading your post, I am not sure if you are serious, mal-informed or just trolling aswell.[/QUOTE]
quit trolling.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;34474939]Are you for fucking real?
Insurgency support is still significant because the current regime has some pretty big credibility issues.
And you can say that about both states.[/QUOTE]
You said policing. The country is tons more stable then it was in 2004(iraq), Its safe to tour Afghanistan now thanks to ISAF.
[QUOTE=jip;34474872]Didn't China push into North Korean territory, push you back to the current border then a ceasefire was signed?
Vietnam was a doomed loss in the first place, guerrilla warfare in the jungle is complete hell for a invading army and the Vietnamese have a long history of being able to defend in this style of warfare and were supported by the Soviets, the same reason they lost in Afghanistan.. NATO was supporting the Mujaheddin.
Better aircraft is debatable due to maintenance and the competition, but definitely out number the enemy.
Better navy in quantity, does not particularly mean they're better then the competition.[/QUOTE]
We basically left. Retreated back to South Korea in order to defend it. Fighting with China would risk a direct conflict with Russia, which was more than we bargained for. Our obligation to South Korea was to defend them, so when things looked like they might turn really bloody, we decided that taking all of Korea was likely not worth it.
Vietnam would have been fine. We halfway understood what needed to be done, but there is some sort of political corruption quagmire that still isn't clear that fucked us hardcore. Basically every important population center was completely off limits to air strikes. They were free to mass produce armaments and supplies all they desired. Then there was Laos, which was another political clusterfuck.
-Better aircraft, yes. We have the F-16, which is one of the best budget multirole fighters. The A-10, the king of close air support. Strategic bombers (B-52, B-1, B-2), which only Russia even HAS, and they only have the bear bomber. Bleeding edge stealth aircraft that nobody actually has the tech for, like the F-22. The super hornet is an extremely flexible and reasonably priced aircraft that has proven itself countless times as a carrier aircraft. We haven't even gotten to rotary wing aircraft or simple transports.
-Better navy in quality. The carrier is the only ship that matters. With a carrier you can destroy other surface ships without ever risking your main vessel. We field supercarriers, which are capable of actually waging war, instead of small scale aid missions and policing. When you shrink the size of carriers, you significantly limit the amount AND the type of aircraft you can launch. We can launch E-2's from our carriers, a vital part of any aircraft arsenal. Everything else, with the exception of our submarines, are designed entirely around defending our carriers. Only one other super carrier currently exists, outside of the eleven which the US military fields. (The French operate it. It is very nice) We have an entire segment of our military dedicated to launching an amphibious attack from our massive navy. We have the boats and hardware to pull it off too. At the end of the day we are the only nation that can cross an ocean and launch a full scale invasion through armed naval resistance. Not even the Russians have a sufficient navy for that purpose.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34474962]We basically left. Retreated back to South Korea in order to defend it. Fighting with China would risk a direct conflict with Russia, which was more than we bargained for. Our obligation to South Korea was to defend them, so when things looked like they might turn really bloody, we decided that taking all of Korea was likely not worth it.
Vietnam would have been fine. We halfway understood what needed to be done, but there is some sort of political corruption quagmire that still isn't clear that fucked us hardcore. Basically every important population center was completely off limits to air strikes. They were free to mass produce armaments and supplies all they desired. Then there was Laos, which was another political clusterfuck.
-Better aircraft, yes. We have the F-16, which is one of the best budget multirole fighters. The A-10, the king of close air support. Strategic bombers (B-52, B-1, B-2), which only Russia even HAS, and they only have the bear bomber. Bleeding edge stealth aircraft that nobody actually has the tech for, like the F-22. The super hornet is an extremely flexible and reasonably priced aircraft that has proven itself countless times as a carrier aircraft. We haven't even gotten to rotary wing aircraft or simple transports.
-Better navy in quality. The carrier is the only ship that matters. With a carrier you can destroy other surface ships without ever risking your main vessel. We field supercarriers, which are capable of actually waging war, instead of small scale aid missions and policing. When you shrink the size of carriers, you significantly limit the amount AND the type of aircraft you can launch. We can launch E-2's from our carriers, a vital part of any aircraft arsenal. Everything else, with the exception of our submarines, are designed entirely around defending our carriers. Only one other super carrier currently exists, outside of the eleven which the US military fields. (The French operate it. It is very nice) We have an entire segment of our military dedicated to launching an amphibious attack from our massive navy. We have the boats and hardware to pull it off too. At the end of the day we are the only nation that can cross an ocean and launch a full scale invasion through armed naval resistance. Not even the Russians have a sufficient navy for that purpose.[/QUOTE]
The Su-35BM is superior to the F-18, Russia managed to create T-50 while maintaining extremely low cost and easy maintainability which are both accented by the things ability to out perform the F-22 in a dogfight, a thing the F-22 was designed to do. Though its a prototype and we're not sure what tech they have implemented but they released performance notes. China has the J-20, which is a interceptor but keep in mind the J-20 is the child of U.S. RnD.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34474936]I don't know if I should follow this one up with a snide remark or just give up and link you to some historic facts to make you read them yourself. The US Army was almost pushed into the sea during the communist aggression. They managed to fight back and contain the communists at the division line, but saying that the US "dominated" Korea is [i]profoundly stupid.[/i][/quote]
*sigh*
It happened. Get over it. Look at a map. South Korea is still there. Victory -> US.
[quote]I am sure Professor Gunfox, Phd in applied probable quantum history. You can't talk this one down. The US Army was completely overwhelmed by a fierce enemy force and had to flee the country after being bashed for 10 years.
You need to lay off the patriotism for your own good. It is insufferable. Reading your post, I am not sure if you are serious, mal-informed or just trolling aswell.[/QUOTE]
We lost 60,000 men. They lost 1.2 million.
Yeah, we were totally getting our asses kicked.
Whatever though. Here, lets try this from another angle. Who has a [I]better[/I] military?
Isuzu is pretty bias, I try to balance my arguments.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.