Can any country beat the U.S in war??

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.

During the Korean War, however, the United States engaged in a large buildup of forces not just for the war, but elsewhere in the world as well. For the Korean conflict, therefore, CRS compared outlays for the Department of Defense during the war with a trend line from average expenditures of the three years before the war to average expenditures of the three years after the war.

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by Mindset
Dry humping has never won wars.

The face of Josh Koschek disapprove this message.

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.

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. :-)

65 Frigates though.

I found that surprising also

EDIT: wiki says this:

In modern navies, frigates are used to protect other warships and merchant-marine ships, especially as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys.

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)