quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote:

By comparison, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been incredibly cheap in terms lost money or soldiers

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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