• China to US: Cut the defence budget, live within your means, stop letting politics take the global e
    153 replies, posted
[QUOTE=lolo;31580534]That was 03'[/QUOTE] You're right, its more now that we are fighting 3 wars. [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] [img]http://www.fxnonstop.com/img/us_military_budget_will_be_in_2011_fingodu__725_billion.jpg[/img]
guys i think that when you're thinking of military spending you need to look at the actual world-climate and use of this spending rather than simply how high the figure is. for example, israel would have a much higher military spending than gabon. however, gabon is not surrounded by hostile nations - israel is. it's all well and good to say that the us spends too much on the military because it spends more than other nations - however, you need to consider whether america needs that military.
[url]http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/b/be/Ackbar.jpg[/url] its a trap, na jokes lol
I think it's interesting to see that here in the West, military procurement initiatives often originate in industry, and reflects what the industry wants to sell rather than what the soldiers might want to have available to them in battle.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;31580504]silly links and assumptions[/QUOTE]Oh, really now? We've got the following things in our favor and I'm going to put the important ones in bold: - Numbers - Quality of equipment - [b]Quality of soldier[/b] - [b]A combined force of arms used to extended conflict[/b] Your links prove nothing, they merely speculate and you assume by "carrier group" I mean strictly equipment. We spend a lot of time training the people to crew those ships, aircraft and the marines ready to kick ass and take names. As for your "forgotten axiom" I'm going to agree with you, but honestly if there's a war going on that axiom is out the fucking window. I'm not going to argue with you about the capabilities of my country's military, because I get this vibe (that I may very well be wrong about) that you're one of those people who think Canada could conquer the world and it's entirely off topic. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to swamp you with plenty of links proving that the US military is capable, equipped and willing to win any fight but I refuse to. This thread isn't about that and we're not going to play that game.
:v: My nationality has nothing to do with my low opinion of the U.S. military to successfully conduct conventional operations today compared to what it was twenty years ago. But oh well, you can continue stay on your "U.S. military cannot ever be defeated" high horse if you wish to. Maybe you just simply disparge any source that disagrees with you?
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31577767]i'll believe it when i see a more credible source than the chinese propaganda machine. perhaps something with a little authority on economics rather than a loyal heroic patriotic supporter of the working class and the struggle against the imperialist capitalist pig-dogs e: worth bearing in mind that US costs are higher also because they actually spend money on the general welfare of their citizenry[/QUOTE] Well, you do have to remember that it is an editorial, but I do see your point.
Something that the US also has to do, regardless if the population wants it or not, is raise the god damned taxes. You have a whole bunch of rich people, tax them! If they complain, say that if they don't deliver they soon won't have their damned country and their money wouldn't be worth shit anyways.
[QUOTE=Penultimate;31581130]Well, you do have to remember that it is an editorial, but I do see your point.[/QUOTE] Point is he is pissed because a dirty communist rat tried telling his mighty person what to do.
[quote]Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.[/quote] Aye, the strategy is to increase economic interdependence, and then spend the the global economic system into collapse. The second stage is to gear the economy towards industrial military production, while conquering and occupying non-nuclear states. [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] Oh wait the United States is already overextended, and the current geopolitical situation gives insight into how toothless a superpower actually is. I suppose the US can only [B]spend more![/B]
Its a plot to attack the USA.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;31580907]Don't get me wrong, I'd love to swamp you with plenty of links [B]proving that the US military is capable, equipped and willing to win any fight[/B] but I refuse to. This thread isn't about that and we're not going to play that game.[/QUOTE] That's silly. Iran is on their way to way to becoming a nuclear state, North Korea already is (and is more belligerent than your mother-in-law), Pakistan is a powder keg waiting to explode....? In any case, US military spending is far more wasteful when compared to Russia and China.
[QUOTE=Super_Nova;31569623]Don't tell me you're one of those idiots who think wikipedia isn't reliable.[/QUOTE] He's not entirely unfounded in his skepticism. I stopped believing Wikipedia was accurate the day I started to read about the Terracotta Army and saw someone had renamed it "The Personal Army of Jackie Chan". Stayed unchanged for three days. [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] Doesn't mean it's completely inaccurate, just be careful when using it as a citation. And then you've got the contributors to it who like to throw out tons of obscure books and ancient magazine issues (newspapers, internet news articles that have mysteriously disappeared, etc.) that nobody owns a copy of (much less has even heard of) for sources and citations, so no one can check to see if they're bullshitting or not. Encyclopedia Dramatica summed up Wikipedia's content and user base exceptionally well as far as edit wars are concerned.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;31581869]Most sources on wikipedia, (Including really important information such as casualties on a specific conflict) [B]tend to be sourced with some batshit retarded book no one has ever heard of. [/B] [/QUOTE] Got any examples of these books? [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] Of course you have to be critical of all sources, that's why you have to evaluate all your sources when writing essays and doing other works. But if you go as far as saying that books tend to be "batshit retarded", then I don't know what will make you think something is reliable and something is not.
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;31569308]bullshit rest of the article I agree with 100% though[/QUOTE] It kind of is, though losing the status quickly nowadays. China's growth is far from stable (especially if the people were to start asking for better living conditions, which they will as China grows) and while it has a large army, it can't properly project that military power around the world (even if you have, say, 200 million troops, they aren't much good if they don't have enough air/artillery/sea support and proper transportation). Russia isn't anywhere near what it used to be. Most of it's military is old or ageing. Europe could be a superpower if it was a single nation, but Europeans are too stupid for that it seems. At the moment, the US is the only superpower. A declining superpower yes, but still a superpower.
The issue is that while the United States relatively declines, other major powers relatively improve, which decreases the gap significantly. That, with globalization and technology proliferation mean that US dominance is not guaranteed in the slightest.
As for Wikipedia's reliability: People always say "Wikipedia isn't reliable are you retarded, X is wrong/Y is right" but then don't give a source for it, which means they pulled it out of their ass. Sure Wikipedia isn't the most reliable but between Wikipedia and you, Wikipedia is more reliable.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;31581980]Got any examples of these books?[/QUOTE] A few examples from the World War I article (one which I often look over because of my particular interest in the war): Wilgus, William John (1931), Transporting the A. E. F. in Western Europe 1917–1919 Terraine, John (1963), Ordeal of Victory Shanafelt, Gary W (1985), The secret enemy: Austria-Hungary and the German alliance 1914–1918 Magliveras, Konstantinos D (1999), Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations: The Law and Practice behind Member States' Expulsion and Suspension of Membership None of them are online for quick, easy validation, which means you're either stuck with having to buy them (which will cost a fortune- assuming, of course, they're even in stock), rent/borrow them from somewhere, or travel to whatever library is closest to you that has copies of them (in my case, that's Kansas City- a long, long drive just for a few books that I'm not even going to get to keep).
[QUOTE=acds;31582159]It kind of is, though losing the status quickly nowadays. China's growth is far from stable (especially if the people were to start asking for better living conditions, which they will as China grows) and while it has a large army, it can't properly project that military power around the world (even if you have, say, 200 million troops, they aren't much good if they don't have enough air/artillery/sea support and proper transportation). Russia isn't anywhere near what it used to be. Most of it's military is old or ageing. Europe could be a superpower if it was a single nation, but Europeans are too stupid for that it seems. At the moment, the US is the only superpower. A declining superpower yes, but still a superpower.[/QUOTE] It's Australias time to shine
[QUOTE=Dppdy;31582291]It's Australias time to shine[/QUOTE] Cry havoc and let slip the dingoes of war!
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;31579883]Um, no, the US military could most likely win any conventional war it's in. Fuck, a single carrier group has more firepower than half the world's individual armies, and we have several of them.I totally agree. We've already went through the budget and trimmed a fuckton, asking "why are we spending forty dollars on an eight dollar hammer?" It's that sort of shit that drives our spending to the fucking ceiling, and we still do it. I'm sure there's ways to cut spending and not diminish our fighting capacity.[/QUOTE] A carrier group in range of a nation capable of deploying a large enough amount of medium to long range missiles and with good enough detection capabilities would not last long. Essentially a carrier group is bloody awesome against a nation that can't touch it. Since it gives you a mobile airforce projection potential. But those giant massive carriers somewhat suffer against modern militaries with satellite support. Essentially these days we are in a situation where no of the major powers of the world can truly endanger any of the other in a conventional war. While the EU, RF and PRC are all accesible to each other by land, they all essentially are able to fight the other to a standstill. And while the US does essentially have the strongest army and airforce, they are far too remote to pose a large enough threath to any of the major powers, since they all have capability to detect and destroy a carrier group.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;31582266]I'm not gonna go on about searching for the specific articles I've encountered over the course of at least 6 years. You misunderstood. (Or I worded my post badly). I meant the statistical value of -usually various conflicts and battles- tend to be sourced with books that are obviously biased and strictly prejudicial. My most recent example is, while reading an article on wiki about the German rape of Soviet civilians during WW2, it stated that 15,000,000 million Soviet women were allegedly raped. Okay, I thought those are quite big numbers compared to the highest estimate of Soviet rape against the German people which is 2 million victims. I checked the source, and it was a feminist book written by some obscure female Russian author I've never heard of. This is my main issue with wiki articles. These studies should be performed by professionals who work for well known statistical agencies, not by some author who -unless personally investigated the issue which is ridiculous- uses numbers to convey her message with exaggerated numbers and sensationalist bullshit.[/QUOTE] Ah I understand now :) [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;31582226]A few examples from the World War I article (one which I often look over because of my particular interest in the war): Wilgus, William John (1931), Transporting the A. E. F. in Western Europe 1917–1919 Terraine, John (1963), Ordeal of Victory Shanafelt, Gary W (1985), The secret enemy: Austria-Hungary and the German alliance 1914–1918 Magliveras, Konstantinos D (1999), Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations: The Law and Practice behind Member States' Expulsion and Suspension of Membership None of them are online for quick, easy validation, which means you're either stuck with having to buy them (which will cost a fortune- assuming, of course, they're even in stock), rent/borrow them from somewhere, or travel to whatever library is closest to you that has copies of them (in my case, that's Kansas City- a long, long drive just for a few books that I'm not even going to get to keep).[/QUOTE] I don't think that's such a big problem, borrowing/buying them that is. I was more thinking about the credibility of sources as Marbalo talked about. I think he made a good point about some being biased, so you'll have to look it up yourself and judge if they are reasonable or not.
Got some major new found respect for China.
[img]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9s0oylfm21qz4w1go1_400.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31577767]i'll believe it when i see a more credible source than the chinese propaganda machine. [/QUOTE] I like how conservatives hate anything foreign so much that even if their own source says they said something, it's not true. How do you get to these ridiculously stupid points, drfunk? It is outstandingly bizarre. [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];31579282']Ofcourse the USAs biggest military rival wants them to cut there defence budget.[/QUOTE] You know what that means? Means you gotta make it bigger!
[QUOTE=amute;31586636]I like how conservatives hate anything foreign so much that even if their own source says they said something, it's not true. How do you get to these ridiculously stupid points, drfunk? It is outstandingly bizarre.[/QUOTE] While I rarely agree with him. How can you trust a new source that is controlled and used to control the Chinese people?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];31579282']Ofcourse the USAs biggest military rival wants them to cut there defence budget.[/QUOTE] Because China has so much to gain from starting a war with the US. /sarcasm
[QUOTE=Robber;31587680]Because China has so much to gain from starting a war with the US. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] Though I agree with you, the People's Republic can gain significant power if the US eliminate their umbrella of protection around Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and so on.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;31579883]Um, no, the US military could most likely win any conventional war it's in. Fuck, a single carrier group has more firepower than half the world's individual armies, and we have several of them.[/QUOTE] It doesn't change the fact that the Army, Marines and Air Force are all tailored to counterinsurgency operations while completely neglecting conventional warfighting. That's where China wins. They don't have to fight any insurgency except for a small group of Islamic fundamentalists in the northwest and don't send their soldiers halfway around the world to occupy other countries. Therefore the majority of their military can focus on conventional warfighting.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;31587843]It doesn't change the fact that the Army, Marines and Air Force are all tailored to counterinsurgency operations while completely neglecting conventional warfighting. That's where China wins. They don't have to fight any insurgency except for a small group of Islamic fundamentalists in the northwest and don't send their soldiers halfway around the world to occupy other countries. Therefore the majority of their military can focus on conventional warfighting.[/QUOTE] Which is why I'd say once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we ask for some of our NATO allies for a few officers to help train our soldiers because we've lost all information apparently. Because apparently no one seemed write it down.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.