Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Couple facts.

1. Our Air Force>> Than the air force of all the countries in the world Combined!
2. Our Navy>>>than any countries navy
3. Our technology is far more adavanced, china is 20 years behind usa in military technology and there the second most powerful country in world.
4. No country has any stealth bombers except us, or jets are far advanced than any countrys jets in the world.
5. We can shoot down any missle headed for usa long before it hits us.

Ive also heard some military experts claim The USA can beat all the countries in this world in war at the same time if nukes are not used

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Couple facts.

1. Our Air Force>> Than the air force of all the countries in the world Combined!

wrong

right

citation needed

On the stealth thing, that's iffy, on the second part that's not really true, the Eurofighter is comparable in most areas to the best we have.


Wrong. Anti-Missile defenses are hyped but untested against anything but low quality Scuds.


No real expert has ever said this.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
wrong

right

citation needed

On the stealth thing, that's iffy, on the second part that's not really true, the Eurofighter is comparable in most areas to the best we have.


Wrong. Anti-Missile defenses are hyped but untested against anything but low quality Scuds.


No real expert has ever said this. The first isnt wrong, our air force > the the next 13 most powerful countries air force.

And about the eurofighter, you do know it was created by america right?

I'm fairly certainly you're thinking of our navy which is insanely powerful compared to the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm fairly certainly you're thinking of our navy which is insanely powerful compared to the rest of the world. Nope, im thinking of the air force, look it up.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
The first isnt wrong, our air force > the the next 13 most powerful countries air force.

And about the eurofighter, you do know it was created by america right?
You're thinking of the navy which is larger than the next 15 navies combined.

And lol no it wasn't. It was created by a joint Italian-English-Spanish-German venture.

So who's got the bigger/better airforce?

But the point is, no. Country comes anywear near beating us in war. Espicially since the navy and air force plays a major part in war.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're thinking of the navy which is larger than the next 15 navies combined.

And lol no it wasn't. It was created by a joint Italian-English-Spanish-German venture. With technology from NATO? Your right about the navy, my fault.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So who's got the bigger/better airforce? We dominate in every category. No one comes close.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
With technology from NATO
That's not even close to it being "Made in America"

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
We dominate in every category. No one comes close. I was actually... not asking you...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I was actually... not asking you... I gave the answer, does it matter?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I was actually... not asking you...
America may have the best air force and the biggest, but I don't think it's lightyears beyond the air forces of Israel and the more powerful Western European countries, especially not if they were to Voltron-up.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
America may have the best air force and the biggest, but I don't think it's lightyears beyond the air forces of Israel and the more powerful Western European countries, especially not if they were to Voltron-up. most of isreal aircraft have been obtained from the us

But the question is. how can any country every hope to beat us in war? We can do anything we want...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
America may have the best air force and the biggest, but I don't think it's lightyears beyond the air forces of Israel and the more powerful Western European countries, especially not if they were to Voltron-up. Tru dat. And I just caught the opening line:

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. Our Air Force>> Than the air force of all the countries in the world Combined!

Lawl. No.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
most of isreal aircraft have been obtained from the us
Which doesn't make it any less effective of an Air Force...besides, they upgrade all their planes to suit their specific needs so they're different aircraft than the ones we use.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Tru dat. And I just caught the opening line:



Lawl. No. I mean navy. Slight mistake and yes our navy is > than the 15 most powerful navies in the world combined. The rest dont matter at the point

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I mean navy. Slight mistake
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Nope, im thinking of the air force, look it up.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Slight mistake, i thought it was navy when i did my research.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which doesn't make it any less effective of an Air Force...besides, they upgrade all their planes to suit their specific needs so they're different aircraft than the ones we use. Our air force would still rolfstomp them in war.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Our air force would still rolfstomp them in war. Numbers aren't the only things that win wars. Where we're fighting, how we're doing it also count. As does timing, preparation, availability of supplies and to safe bases.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Slight mistake, i thought it was navy when i did my research.
You clearly didn't do much research if you confused the navy with the air force...
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Our air force would still rolfstomp them in war.
Based on what?

How's this list make out ?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

The US has no domestic manufacturing base and therefore no strategic industries making us dependent on foreign countries. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and our power and communications grids have fallen significantly behind. For all our toys, see how we fair in an invasion when our resources are cutoff.

There is no country on the planet that can challenge United States dominance in a conventional battle.

But on the other hand, it's important to look at the last ten years as a reminder that we're not invincible. The rules of engagement are important. We could kick China's military in the ass, but could we successfully occupy their country? Doubtful.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Numbers aren't the only things that win wars. Where we're fighting, how we're doing it also count. As does timing, preparation, availability of supplies and to safe bases. We have numbers higher quality, much higher budget than any country, and more foreign bases though

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There is no country on the planet that can challenge United States dominance in a conventional battle.

But on the other hand, it's important to look at the last ten years as a reminder that we're not invincible. The rules of engagement are important. We could kick China's military in the ass, but could we successfully occupy their country? Doubtful. I think we could kick china and russia military ass at the same time.

Originally posted by Don Corleone
How's this list make out ?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/ Its true but the US should be in its own category when our navy> the following 15 most powerful countries combined.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The US has no domestic manufacturing base

This is absurdly false. And, as of late, more and more companies are coming back to America to do their manufacturing. Blame it on the economic recession we have had the last few years...but it has been good for businesses.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
and therefore no strategic industries making us dependent on foreign countries.

A ridiculous conclusion based on a false premise.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Our infrastructure is crumbling

The opposite is true. It is improving.


Originally posted by Darth Jello
and our power and communications grids have fallen significantly behind.

This is only partially true. In some ways, the US has a much better communications system than others. In some areas, we are ahead of much of the world in communications. Still, in others, we are behind. For instance, you can get close to 100Mbps download speed in New Jersey in some areas but in Montana, you'll be lucky to get DSL.

We are testing, in Kansas, a 1000Mbps residential speed service for internet. Imagine this deploying to most of the US? I look forward to it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
For all our toys, see how we fair in an invasion when our resources are cutoff.

Yeah, how could we possibly survive with plenty of weapons, food, and energy resources against a fairly impossible invasion scenario?

I would have to see it to believe it.

Well, everyone in Russia and China are safe. As Vizzini says, "Never go into a land war against Asia."

is it true that china will exceed us in 10 years?

it really depends on what you mean by "beat" and "war"

Ive just realised this is all based on non nuclear war.

Russia has far more nukes than any country even the us.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Ive just realised this is all based on non nuclear war.

Russia has far more nukes than any country even the us.
Thats true. But then back in the day The US wasn't run by a bunch of pinko commie hippies like it is now.

Okay lets say it is non nuclear war. Wouldnt a country want to bomb our major cities and bases? Or can the usa prevent all bombing attemps?
Can icbms be shot down?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Can icbms be shot down?


Colossus-Big C, please use "Google" more often.

Almost every last question you ask, as of late, can easily be answered with less than 1 minute of Google searching.


The answer to your question is "yes". Missile defense systems have been worked on for decades and the technology is just now maturing. Look up GBI and missiles to read about stuff.

Or just google search "shoot down ICBMs". Yes, you can "ask" google search questions just like that and it finds the answer for you.

Why should he google it when he can get saps like you and I to answer these questions for him?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should he google it when he can get saps like you and I to answer these questions for him?

Have you seen me answering his questions, as of late?

NOPE!




I just decided to answer this one because I felt like giving him the constructive criticism, too. If I didn't add it, I would come off looking like a complete ass. Now I'm just a half-ass (almost pun is almost punny) because I also helped. Now you know what it is like to be in my mind a bit more. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

you serious?

Latvia can beat the pants off U.S.A any day of the week.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Have you seen me answering his questions, as of late?

NOPE!




I just decided to answer this one because I felt like giving him the constructive criticism, too. If I didn't add it, I would come off looking like a complete ass. Now I'm just a half-ass (almost pun is almost punny) because I also helped. Now you know what it is like to be in my mind a bit more. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! you sap

Cue inevitable reminder of taking 10 to defeat a man with kidney failure that lived in caves

yes bob I believe so...

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
But the question is. how can any country every hope to beat us in war? We can do anything we want...

lol Bio warfare, WW3 worldwide nuclear meltdown nobody wins. The biggest enemy to America is from within.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
lol Bio warfare, WW3 worldwide nuclear meltdown nobody wins. The biggest enemy to America is from within. Yes... the goblin threat...

im more worried about the damned lizard people

They're the ones who took down Australia:

Xn9fgcSuvmA

No country can defeat USA in an open military engagement. However, same cannot be said about occupation based struggles.

While USA won in Iraq; it lost in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by jaden101
Cue inevitable reminder of taking 10 to defeat a man with kidney failure that lived in caves

you mean "...lived in a mansion"

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
While USA won in Iraq;

wut?

Originally posted by inimalist
wut? USA won by declaring "peace with honor" in our time.

Originally posted by inimalist
wut?
Depends on how you define "win".

The USA defeated Iraq's official military and prevented anti-American militias from overthrowing the new government (albeit you can't credit that wholly to America as the Awakening Militias and the decision of Al-Sadr to make a truce with the Malaki government made it possible) but in the long run not all of their goals were achieved and it took longer than anyone would have believed beforehand.

On some levels America "won", in terms of military objectives anyway. It was ultimately a diplomatic failure however as Iraq is now drifting closer to Iran.

There are a lot of countries that could beat the U.S in war, if you look at the obvious China, India or countries with money like switzerland and germany, which is financially stable. It is my belief that the only country that would ever dare attack the U.S is cuba, or north korea.

Originally posted by rudester
There are a lot of countries that could beat the U.S in war, if you look at the obvious China, India or countries with money like switzerland and germany,
What kind of war?

In an open war fought on neutral territory where the goal is simply to defeat your opponent's forces not one of those countries could beat America.

Only way any of them would win a war with America was if America invaded them and a war of attrition ensued. Though I doubt Switzerland could even win that if America was deadset on subjugating it. I have my doubts about Germany as well. India and China would win such a war by virtue of their size alone.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Can any country beat the U.S in war??

Chuck Norris...

was that suppose to be funny?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
was that suppose to be funny?

No. That was suppose to be Chuck Norris.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What kind of war?

In an open war fought on neutral territory where the goal is simply to defeat your opponent's forces not one of those countries could beat America.

Only way any of them would win a war with America was if America invaded them and a war of attrition ensued. Though I doubt Switzerland could even win that if America was deadset on subjugating it. I have my doubts about Germany as well. India and China would win such a war by virtue of their size alone.

You're just sill if you think, China or Russia is incapable of doing that.

China and Russia would get smoked in a conventional war. We straight **** them up.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
China and Russia would get smoked in a conventional war. We straight **** them up.

It depends, if the leadership uploads into a celestial self-replicating living super weapon that's spreads across both within and outside the earth, it will be impossible to defeat or kill such.

Now such weapon only needs a few ingredients to be instantiated in the real world, superintelligence(high power algorithms and computational hardware), high speed molecular tape sequencer, high speed molecular tape synthesizer, large multidomain knowledge data base.

Once built it is impervious to all forms of attack, and becomes more resilient through time, such that even mobile black hole or entropic death can no longer stop it.

Nope, America can beat anything. Ask AIDS.

You couldn't beat Canada, and your celebrities know it. It's a good thing for your American pride that the Keystone XL pipeline hasn't been built yet; we'd just flood the U.S. with oil and drop a match.

loose lips sink ships!!!

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
It depends, if the leadership uploads into a celestial self-replicating living super weapon that's spreads across both within and outside the earth, it will be impossible to defeat or kill such.

Now such weapon only needs a few ingredients to be instantiated in the real world, superintelligence(high power algorithms and computational hardware), high speed molecular tape sequencer, high speed molecular tape synthesizer, large multidomain knowledge data base.

Once built it is impervious to all forms of attack, and becomes more resilient through time, such that even mobile black hole or entropic death can no longer stop it.
This is conventional?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You're just sill if you think, China or Russia is incapable of doing that.
Russia needed a whole week to overcome the conventional forces of Georgia.

China is completely untested. They haven't fought a war since the 70s.

Originally posted by inimalist
loose lips sink ships!!! More like run them ashore with an ocean full of crude.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Russia needed a whole week to overcome the conventional forces of Georgia. To be fair, Georgians are hardcore. I hear they wipe with sandpaper.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
More like run them ashore with an ocean full of crude.

To be fair, Georgians are hardcore. I hear they wipe with sandpaper.
Well I hear they encourage investment and then hold foreign businessmen hostage when they come over and drop trumped up charges of espionage when said businessmen transfer all their assets to the Georgian government.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
China is completely untested. They haven't fought a war since the 70s.

They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place. Then it's a generational war. China's entire economy is dependent on the world buying from it. They don't necessarily have to wait until their battle tactics and technology are second-to-none, they need to wait for their economy to be self-sufficient. Any aggression on their part will dry up foreign wells, so they need to be able stay afloat without them. If China goes to war with anybody else, they're going to war with the world. For them to win, they'd better be the only country on Earth with an economy.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place.

The reason the US military seems weaker than it truly is at the moment comes from the fact they are fighting an enemy against whom their most powerful weapons are essentially useless. It has taken a radical redesign of the role of infantry as counter-insurgent forces, and basically benched much of the military hardware that would be relevant in conflict with a more formal military.

However, such a conflict is not what would be seen in a war against China (unless America tried some type of long-term occupation, that would fail terribly). China is a generally industrialized nation with a huge military budget and investment in modern military technology. They have planes, boats, tanks, etc. They would fight with tactics that are what the Americans have planned to fight against for decades. The entire defense strategy of the American military is specifically designed to counter the type of military threat China or Russia would pose.

In terms of technology, America is still far superior to China on every front, and in terms of numbers, America has more essential equipment than do the Chinese. They may not have the same number of ground troops, but they have more Air Craft carriers, air fortresses and nuclear subs... by at least a 2:1 ratio (though, for something like Aircraft carriers, I don't believe China is expecting to have a single operational one for another decade).

China might be "biding their time", but as I was saying earlier in this thread (or a different one), assuming they continue the level of growth they are currently seeing (which they wont), they may develop a clear military advantage over America in 50+ years, but that almost assumes America collapses or no longer pursues global military dominance. Best estimates I've seen say it will be 20+ years before China can fully assert itself within its own sphere of influence.

This is, of course, excluding the nuclear option. China and America aren't even playing the same game when it comes to that. China has some nukes and some defenses, America has the most sophisticated and robust nuclear offenses and defenses on the planet.

To be frank, China will not surpass America in military power for the foreseeable future, and America isn't losing manpower or treasure all that fast either. By comparison, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been incredibly cheap in terms lost money or soldiers. Additionally, war between China and America may favor America in terms of economics.

As a consumer nation, America has many people looking for work but no demand for their labour because of the cheap goods from China. If that were to stop in a military situation, the government and the private sector could invest in getting these people to work almost akin to "war communism" that was a major part of "total war" theory. China stands to loose employed labour force in such a conflict, as they are a supplier nation. If trade between America and China was cut off, China would now be stuck with a surplus of goods its own population wouldn't be able to buy, and would face tremendous economic constriction. Sure, the Chinese state could invest to offset the impact, but that investment would be at the expense of investment into military goods. Even just converting the factories into military factories wouldn't offset it entirely. It would be devastating for both economies, with no doubt, but as with militarization in Germany prior to WW2, American investment into the production of more war-machines may have beneficial economic impacts that would see them fare better in an America-China conflict.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Then it's a generational war. China's entire economy is dependent on the world buying from it. They don't necessarily have to wait until their battle tactics and technology are second-to-none, they need to wait for their economy to be self-sufficient. Any aggression on their part will dry up foreign wells, so they need to be able stay afloat without them. If China goes to war with anybody else, they're going to war with the world. For them to win, they'd better be the only country on Earth with an economy.

Fair point, but as you said all they have do is have to wait and they do appear to be waiting now. They don't seem to be reacting as of yet but how close will they let US/UK get to their borders before they do?

With Russia they could jointly re-take the former Soviet states and threaten any tenuous 'grip' we might have by that time on Iraq and Afghanistan. They might not have many allies to start with for sure but we've rubbed a lot of noses the wrong way already so sympathy may come in short supply in some countries.

I'm not an expert on military matters so don't quote me here, I'd love to be wrong!

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

On the flipside it also means they have no practical experience and have no idea how they would perform either.


If anything morale would go up during a war with China. Look at the Vietnam War: whenever NV forces launched major conventional offensives US troops would experience surges in morale because they finally had an enemy they could fight in the manner they'd been trained to fight.

Ask any American soldier if they'd prefer fighting Chinese troops on open battlefields or fight Mujahadeen in bombed out towns and in barren hillcountry and they'd probably prefer the battle they actually received training for in BT.

inimalist

Good analysis and I agree but with the nuclear option all of our strength and resources could be useless. Now I know MAD protects against regular launches but without a clear enemy how can one determine who dealt it? If suitcase nukes do exist for example, or other transportable bombs (either clean or 'dirty') then before a country knows it they could be defenceless before the invading army. Now, this could apply to all countries because if one has them we all do.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the flipside it also means they have no practical experience and have no idea how they would perform either.


If anything morale would go up during a war with China. Look at the Vietnam War: whenever NV forces launched major conventional offensives US troops would experience surges in morale because they finally had an enemy they could fight in the manner they'd been trained to fight.

Ask any American soldier if they'd prefer fighting Chinese troops on open battlefields or fight Mujahadeen in bombed out towns and in barren hillcountry and they'd probably prefer the battle they actually received training for in BT.

Practical experience no, but they've been watching us operate for a long time and we have never actively engaged the Russians (at least not officially) before, so how does that fit in US training? Ask the Nazis what it felt like to have the Red Army bear down on them;yes, they had support from us at the time but they're not reliant on us now.

Bringing up the Vietnam War doesn't help your argument because you lost, they won. Your weapons/technology couldn't beat their strategies and philosophy. This same philosophy will undoubtably be shared by China and certainly N.Korea. I don't think they could invade/occupy you but they certainly could defeat you by attrition alone.

I seriously doubt there's any difference between a Mujahadeen fighter and a Chinese soldier, save maybe discipline, both of them would be prepared to die to take down any opponent, both use the terrority to their advantage and weaponise it you will, use scare tactics, psychological warfare. As did the Vietnamese and they drove you out, if they had had a bigger country/arsenal they could have retaliated, and with your country brutalised by that encounter who knows what could have happened.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Practical experience no, but they've been watching us operate for a long time and we have never actively engaged the Russians (at least not officially) before, so how does that fit in US training? Ask the Nazis what it felt like to have the Red Army bear down on them;yes, they had support from us at the time but they're not reliant on us now.

The Red Army took a few years to organize and build up to the point that it could actually push the Germans back.

The current Russian airforce has such a poor budget that it's fighter pilots have a tiny fraction of the number of hours spent training in the air compared to American fighter pilots.


That's irrelevant to my point, which was that American morale goes up if the enemy is a traditional, conventional one like China.

I'm not talking about a war of occupation, I'm talking about a conventional conflict in which the enemy plays America's game, which China will.

The philosophy had little to do with it. It's all about homefield advantage.

The Japanese Empire had soldiers that were MUCH more zealous than either the current Chinese army or the Vietnamese and they lost because they played America at it's own game: a conventional war.

What gives you this impression about the Chinese military?

Like do you actually know anything about it?

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Good analysis and I agree but with the nuclear option all of our strength and resources could be useless.

not really. China doesn't have enough nuclear missiles. I will elaborate, but one of the sort of misconceptions about nuclear warfare in the public mind is that the most effective place to nuke is a major city or whatever. Nuclear war is about taking out opposing military capacity. If you look at the way missile silos were placed in America (before the days of MIRVs at least ), the calculations were done such that they believed it would only be possible for soviet missiles to target each silo individually. Basically, it became a game of how to create a nuclear system that could survive the initial strike and retaliate, making the cost of striking first too much to justify the advantage of attacking.

China has the capacity to hit a bunch of cities and kill a lot of people, but they have no capacity to disable the American military in a single strike. Even if they could (they can't) take out America's land based missiles, America has numerous nuclear armed subs constantly patrolling with the ability to launch sub based ICBMs, essentially guaranteeing China will be struck back after attacking first. China may have 5 such subs.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Now I know MAD protects against regular launches

actually, there is no MAD with China. America could quite easily obliterate their nuclear capacity and such with ICBMs and China would have no ability to retaliate whatsoever.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
but without a clear enemy how can one determine who dealt it?

? I thought we were talking about a military conflict between China and America...

regardless, MAD style ICBM attacks wouldn't be too hard to determine the origin of, especially given all the radar and such set up during the cold war specifically to monitor such things.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
If suitcase nukes do exist for example, or other transportable bombs (either clean or 'dirty') then before a country knows it they could be defenceless before the invading army.

see, this is what I was talking about above though. A suitcase bomb or a dirty bomb are things used to kill many people or hit single targets to cause panic. How are you going to cripple the entire American military capacity with suitcase bombs? sure, you can kill people in a city discretely, but man, the cost associated with that... If America even suspected Chinese involvement in such an action, they would be almost forced to vaporize them...

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Now, this could apply to all countries because if one has them we all do.

well, you can sleep safely knowing that while both the Americans and Russians have tried and may have succeeded in building such bombs, they are certainly more prominent in fiction than they are in national military conflict.

Terrorists and the like are different, but for nations, suitcase bombs make little sense.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I seriously doubt there's any difference between a Mujahadeen fighter and a Chinese soldier

one wears a uniform of a single nation, is part of a sophisticated command structure and is learned and engages in modern mixed unit tactics whereas the other uses asymmetric tactics while supported by local populations, loyal to nothing but an ideology.

Like, given the structure and size, the Chinese army would be at a detriment if they moved to mujahadeen/insurgent combat tactics. Insurgent groups are hugely limited in their capacity to project their forces, have very limited win scenarios and generally rely on the "morality" of the more powerful force to not just murder all the civilians. ugh, wont get into another long ramble here... the main point is that China would fare far worse against the Americans if they attempted asymmetric tactics than they would with conventional tactics. The asymmetric option really only helps in a scenario where America tries to occupy China, not in a conflict between the two armies. Asymmetric combat would only be worthwhile largely after the Chinese army proper was defeated.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
inimalist

Good analysis and I agree but with the nuclear option all of our strength and resources could be useless. Now I know MAD protects against regular launches but without a clear enemy how can one determine who dealt it? If suitcase nukes do exist for example, or other transportable bombs (either clean or 'dirty') then before a country knows it they could be defenceless before the invading army. Now, this could apply to all countries because if one has them we all do.

This is the reason that security services exist. If the enemy thinks you're bringing a bomb into the country they will be very angry. Most tactically important targets are also hardened against attack (either with actual bomb resistance or layers of localized security).

Security services also tend to advocate redundancy and secrecy. If you want to cripple the military of a nation large enough to actually have a military you need extensive intelligence gathering abilities and very impressive coordination. Lots of people, planting lots of bombs, after months or years of surveillance to make sure it happens. It's a very effective form of passive defense, the only weapon that can get through is so huge and unweildy if it doesn't trip up and collapse on its own it will be seem coming a long ways away.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Fair point, but as you said all they have do is have to wait and they do appear to be waiting now. They don't seem to be reacting as of yet but how close will they let US/UK get to their borders before they do?

With Russia they could jointly re-take the former Soviet states and threaten any tenuous 'grip' we might have by that time on Iraq and Afghanistan. They might not have many allies to start with for sure but we've rubbed a lot of noses the wrong way already so sympathy may come in short supply in some countries.

I'm not an expert on military matters so don't quote me here, I'd love to be wrong! Timely that I read in the paper today that Asia's economy is going to represent about 60% of the world's GDP by 2050. 50% of that will be China and India.

I wouldn't be worried too much about Russia. Their birth rate's in the can. Their numbers will be plummeting by the millions by 2050. 1000's of terrorists attacks go largely unreported, their military couldn't even handle Georgia, and if Putin/Medvedev are gonna be in til '24, you can bet on some internal strife and disorder. Those protests we've seen are just the beginning. They're either gonna be too busy tearing themselves up, or too busy stamping themselves down. And I doubt very much that the EU will take kindly to Russia annexing their Eastern members. Germany's GDP alone is higher than all of Russia's, it's population is at a ratio of 140 Russia:80 Germany. And that's just Germany.

China's population is also set to fall. It doesn't seem like a big deal considering their current numbers, but their birthrate isn't what it once was, and that One Child policy is going to come back and bite them ass. Apparently it's already started happening.

India's the one I'd be worried about in the mid 21st century. Billion+ numbers, high birthrate, massive economy, nuclear. But still... their GDP per capita stinks, and like China are very much reliant on international markets.

And that last bit's the great thing about globalization. Nations, especially the powerhouses, are too reliant on trade and international cooperation. Our economies are nowhere near self-sufficient enough to withstand a war with one another. China makes war with the West and NATO, kiss its economy goodbye. It doesn't have enough powerful friends to trade with to maintain it's massive population, economy, and war machine.


Penn Jillette said it best on Bullshit!. Jump to 4:55:

0AQN6FCOJXI

w85TYWTQJmA

relevant enough to what we were talking about

Is there any more reaction to my posts? I'm not quite sure a pack of four different members saying essentially the same thing is enough.

The browbeating attitude of some on here is the main reason I stay out of GDF discussions.

And that's why you have no friends

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Is there any more reaction to my posts? I'm not quite sure a pack of four different members saying essentially the same thing is enough.

do you have any additional evidence to support your points?

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
The browbeating attitude of some on here is the main reason I stay out of GDF discussions.

poor precious!

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Is there any more reaction to my posts? I'm not quite sure a pack of four different members saying essentially the same thing is enough.

The browbeating attitude of some on here is the main reason I stay out of GDF discussions.
So it's browbeating if people don't accept your positions?

Yes. If you don't agree with me, then you're a bully for countering my points.

This thread is pointless because of the nuke technology. Every single country doesn't really stand a chance when a missile is pointed in their face. The next world war probably wont be just a "gun" fight. Just saying.

Originally posted by inimalist
The reason the US military seems weaker than it truly is at the moment comes from the fact they are fighting an enemy against whom their most powerful weapons are essentially useless. It has taken a radical redesign of the role of infantry as counter-insurgent forces, and basically benched much of the military hardware that would be relevant in conflict with a more formal military.

However, such a conflict is not what would be seen in a war against China (unless America tried some type of long-term occupation, that would fail terribly). China is a generally industrialized nation with a huge military budget and investment in modern military technology. They have planes, boats, tanks, etc. They would fight with tactics that are what the Americans have planned to fight against for decades. The entire defense strategy of the American military is specifically designed to counter the type of military threat China or Russia would pose.

In terms of technology, America is still far superior to China on every front, and in terms of numbers, America has more essential equipment than do the Chinese. They may not have the same number of ground troops, but they have more Air Craft carriers, air fortresses and nuclear subs... by at least a 2:1 ratio (though, for something like Aircraft carriers, I don't believe China is expecting to have a single operational one for another decade).

China might be "biding their time", but as I was saying earlier in this thread (or a different one), assuming they continue the level of growth they are currently seeing (which they wont), they may develop a clear military advantage over America in 50+ years, but that almost assumes America collapses or no longer pursues global military dominance. Best estimates I've seen say it will be 20+ years before China can fully assert itself within its own sphere of influence.

This is, of course, excluding the nuclear option. China and America aren't even playing the same game when it comes to that. China has some nukes and some defenses, America has the most sophisticated and robust nuclear offenses and defenses on the planet.

To be frank, China will not surpass America in military power for the foreseeable future, and America isn't losing manpower or treasure all that fast either. By comparison, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been incredibly cheap in terms lost money or soldiers. Additionally, war between China and America may favor America in terms of economics.

As a consumer nation, America has many people looking for work but no demand for their labour because of the cheap goods from China. If that were to stop in a military situation, the government and the private sector could invest in getting these people to work almost akin to "war communism" that was a major part of "total war" theory. China stands to loose employed labour force in such a conflict, as they are a supplier nation. If trade between America and China was cut off, China would now be stuck with a surplus of goods its own population wouldn't be able to buy, and would face tremendous economic constriction. Sure, the Chinese state could invest to offset the impact, but that investment would be at the expense of investment into military goods. Even just converting the factories into military factories wouldn't offset it entirely. It would be devastating for both economies, with no doubt, but as with militarization in Germany prior to WW2, American investment into the production of more war-machines may have beneficial economic impacts that would see them fare better in an America-China conflict.

Great post

I agree with everything except this


Both wars have, to my knowledge, been far more expensive then US originally anticipated. And the last estimate I read concerning the expensive exceeds other countries entire military budget.

Originally posted by Utrigita

Both wars have, to my knowledge, been far more expensive then US originally anticipated. And the last estimate I read concerning the expensive exceeds other countries entire military budget.
But consider that the United States' military budget is greater than the next 14 combined.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Both wars have, to my knowledge, been far more expensive then US originally anticipated. And the last estimate I read concerning the expensive exceeds other countries entire military budget.

It was more expensive than they expressed originally, but it is nothing like Vietnam, Korea, the world wars, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
It was more expensive than they expressed originally, but it is nothing like Vietnam, Korea, the world wars, etc.

Yet when the cost each year exceeds the cost the UK's military budget and makes up for 1/6 of the worlds largest military, I personally think it have been quite expensive.

Also The Iraq andAfghanistan war is very close (at 2008) at having costed more then Vietnam and Korea according to:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/108054.pdf

So today 4 years after I think it's fair to assume that those two wars (Iraq/Afghanistan) have overtaken the other two (Vietnam War/Korea).

Granted I'm not a expert no economy etc. but the statistics are the reason for me disagreeing with you.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Yet when the cost each year exceeds the cost the UK's military budget and makes up for 1/6 of the worlds largest military, I personally think it have been quite expensive.

Also The Iraq andAfghanistan war is very close (at 2008) at having costed more then Vietnam and Korea according to:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/108054.pdf

So today 4 years after I think it's fair to assume that those two wars (Iraq/Afghanistan) have overtaken the other two (Vietnam War/Korea).

Granted I'm not a expert no economy etc. but the statistics are the reason for me disagreeing with you.
You have to think of it this way: America has much more money to spend than any country on Earth (even if we have to borrow, the fact remains that we've had no problem with the physical action of spending) so what would economically cripple the UK wouldn't cripple America.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Yet when the cost each year exceeds the cost the UK's military budget and makes up for 1/6 of the worlds largest military, I personally think it have been quite expensive.

thats sort of an entirely different point than what I was saying though, isn't it?

Originally posted by Utrigita
Also The Iraq andAfghanistan war is very close (at 2008) at having costed more then Vietnam and Korea according to:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/108054.pdf

So today 4 years after I think it's fair to assume that those two wars (Iraq/Afghanistan) have overtaken the other two (Vietnam War/Korea).

Granted I'm not a expert no economy etc. but the statistics are the reason for me disagreeing with you.

huh, fair enough, it is only far cheaper in terms of bodies.

Canada, *****!

Originally posted by inimalist
thats sort of an entirely different point than what I was saying though, isn't it?



huh, fair enough, it is only far cheaper in terms of bodies.
Cheaper in terms of prestige lost as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats sort of an entirely different point than what I was saying though, isn't it?

Yes most certainly, I'm afraid I got the response to you mixed up in my thought on what Omega Vision said.

Originally posted by inimalist
huh, fair enough, it is only far cheaper in terms of bodies.

Atleast as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You have to think of it this way: America has much more money to spend than any country on Earth (even if we have to borrow, the fact remains that we've had no problem with the physical action of spending) so what would economically cripple the UK wouldn't cripple America.

I'm fully aware of that, my point was more towards that the two wars by no means have been cheap for the US (like a war never is), regardless of the US military budget and it's economic strength.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Canada, *****!

I am Canadian....

actually, if you look at the chart in that PDF, it isn't totally clear that Iraq/Afghanistan is more costly than Korea or Vietnam. Sure, in terms of absolute dollar value or yearly spending, no argument at all.

The chart also gives figures about spending on the war in terms of % of GDP. Vietnam cost almost twice as much of America's GDP than do Iraq/Afghanistan combined, and spending on the military in general was over twice as much as a % of GDP. Korea is essentially double that again in both measures. So while it might cost more dollars to fight in Iraq/Afghanistan, its not costing the US economy nearly as much as did Vietnam or Korea.

just sayin, /shrug

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Cheaper in terms of prestige lost as well.

You'd say moreso than Vietnam? not that I'm arguing, just curious why?

Originally posted by inimalist
I am Canadian....

actually, if you look at the chart in that PDF, it isn't totally clear that Iraq/Afghanistan is more costly than Korea or Vietnam. Sure, in terms of absolute dollar value or yearly spending, no argument at all.

The chart also gives figures about spending on the war in terms of % of GDP. Vietnam cost almost twice as much of America's GDP than do Iraq/Afghanistan combined, and spending on the military in general was over twice as much as a % of GDP. Korea is essentially double that again in both measures. So while it might cost more dollars to fight in Iraq/Afghanistan, its not costing the US economy nearly as much as did Vietnam or Korea.

just sayin, /shrug

True on both account, but I was under the impression that the comparison made was purely made from a "what did it cost us" point of view, and not in combination with how it affected the general US economy.

But again you made the statement so you know in what context it was meant. I just leaped to a conclusion.

Originally posted by Utrigita
True on both account, but I was under the impression that the comparison made was purely made from a "what did it cost us" point of view, and not in combination with how it affected the general US economy.

But again you made the statement so you know in what context it was meant. I just leaped to a conclusion.

no, I was legitimately surprised that Vietnam cost so little, I just noticed that looking at the table. Korea was comparable in per-year costs (sort of), but only went on 4 years, even that is surprising to me though.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I was legitimately surprised that Vietnam cost so little, I just noticed that looking at the table. Korea was comparable in per-year costs (sort of), but only went on 4 years, even that is surprising to me though.



I think that explains it tbh. But granted the chart and statistics have some faults given the different departments that have handled each war spendings and each department having their own way of calculating. But still I think it gives a rough idea.

that says they attempted to average out the effects of the other military buildup.

Originally posted by inimalist
that says they attempted to average out the effects of the other military buildup.

Granted my mistake, I read it wrong.

Nope, we have super soldiers.

We have GSP. We win.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
We have GSP. We win. Gingrich-Santorum-Paul is an insta-win?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Gingrich-Santorum-Paul is an insta-win?
Of course.

They're like a three man A-Team.

The Hannibal is conspicuously absent (he's getting lots of endorsements so the others don't hang out with him anymore) but Gingrich is the BA, Santorum is the Faceman, and Ron Paul is the Murdoch.

Let it be known that Gingrich pitties the fool that thinks he has no chance of winning with only two states and a campaign staff that's leaving him like rats from a sinking ship.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
We have GSP. We win. Dry humping has never won wars.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Of course.

They're like a three man A-Team.

The Hannibal is conspicuously absent (he's getting lots of endorsements so the others don't hang out with him anymore) but Gingrich is the BA, Santorum is the Faceman, and Ron Paul is the Murdoch.

Let it be known that Gingrich pitties the fool that thinks he has no chance of winning with only two states and a campaign staff that's leaving him like rats from a sinking ship. I'd watch that show. But only if Obama was the villain, and W. Bush and Cheney were the bickering, bumbling/crazy bosses in charge behind the scenes.

Originally posted by Mindset
Dry humping has never won wars.

The face of Josh Koschek disapprove this message.

http://www.beatdown.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/josh-koscheck-eye.png

Just because the United State may have the best military technology does not mean that we are guarantee to win every time. We also need to beware of poor military strategies against our opponents. That was why Britain lost the war with us for independence and even with superior technology, we have lost the war against Vietnam.

Originally posted by astarisborn94
Just because the United State may have the best military technology does not mean that we are guarantee to win every time. We also need to beware of poor military strategies against our opponents. That was why Britain lost the war with us for independence and even with superior technology, we have lost the war against Vietnam.
Britain lost because every major rival declared war on them.

Originally posted by astarisborn94
Just because the United State may have the best military technology does not mean that we are guarantee to win every time. We also need to beware of poor military strategies against our opponents. That was why Britain lost the war with us for independence and even with superior technology, we have lost the war against Vietnam.

The war in Vietnam was lost because of a fundamental wrong set of ideas as to what caused the Viet Cong to fight. And even then, in pretty much every conventional battle between the Vietnamese and the Americans the Americans crushed the Vietnamese forces. The Tet Offensive being a good example. Which is also why I think the poster who mentioned it earlier is correct, the only way to succesfully fight a enemy like the US is through a prolonged war of attrition.

Give it 10 years.... Babylon is burning!

Originally posted by What's a Whirly
Give it 10 years.... Babylon is burning!

Whirly, can you try to not be so obvious?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whirly, can you try to not be so obvious?

Haha Shaky, where would the fun be in that old friend. :-)

http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/economist-2.png

http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/economist-3.png

http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/economis-1.png

65 Frigates though.

I found that surprising also

EDIT: wiki says this:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate

so, I'm not sure how fundamental they would be in a Naval battle (not that I think you are suggesting their frigates might turn the tide in a war, lolz)

huh, just thinking, if the frigates were equipped for anti-air, they might be a counter to American carriers, which serve as the primary naval long range platform. sneaky...

I'm guessing the massive cruiser, destroyer and submarine advantage the US has offsets that possibility.

it would still run into the issue that American planes are just as capable of sinking these anti-aircraft frigates as they are of shooting said planes down.

After reading up on the Falklands War I can't say I'd want to serve on a surface ship in a major conventional war.

I don't know and I don't care.http://www.progtours.info/zhushu1-1.jpg

Originally posted by Omega Vision
it would still run into the issue that American planes are just as capable of sinking these anti-aircraft frigates as they are of shooting said planes down.

After reading up on the Falklands War I can't say I'd want to serve on a surface ship in a major conventional war. But think of how much deck space you could mop. And the synchronized singing?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But think of how much deck space you could mop. And the synchronized singing?
InBXu-iY7cw

But in Chinese?

UMG has blocked that video from entering Canada.


God bless those corporations.

world needs another hitler but first we need superman to come and take all of our really pointy toys away from us so we have to fight with pool noodles. Another unifying moment is coming, just hope we listen to ech other this time instead of talking at the same time about which idea is better.