rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

It won't matter if the carriers are sunk because the nuclear subs would fuck them up

Contributor at Return of Kings.  I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Quote: (08-01-2016 08:36 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

So, essentially, Russia or China would fuck us up?

What I'm not really grasping here is why they let us lord over them in most scenarios if they'd wreck us in a straight up fight. Why don't either of these countries throw their weight around with the USA if they'd fuck us in any naval scenario?

M.A.D. that's why.

No nuclear power is going to escalate provocation just because.

People like to pretend nuclear weapons and even more powerful weapons don't exist now for some reason. These things didn't just disappear after the cold war.

The cold war is only symbolically over. The threat of nuclear destruction has not changed really. It's only shifted into a more opaque geopolitical power struggle between many nations now instead of two principle nations.

The whole end of war ideal and final victor concept behind the neoconservative new american century is a farce.

It's really only the beginning. This era is going to be marked with global economic instability and the decline of the old guard (western europe) and shifting undercurrents of nationalism and revolution.

Things are going to get really ugly down the road.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Quote:Quote:

One thing to note about carriers is that one gets the impression over the last 40 years or so, the US Navy has quietly been moving to a submarine force. Maybe the carriers are just there, like as suggested above, to deal with less advanced countries.

Carriers are obsolete in a war with a real power. China stilll fears them but the Russians laugh at them. The Russians have hypersonic missiles nicknamed "carrier destroyers" that can be launched from small boats that are following our fleet 24/7 at any given time.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Quote:Quote:

Quote: (08-01-2016 08:50 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Quote: (08-01-2016 08:36 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

So, essentially, Russia or China would fuck us up?

What I'm not really grasping here is why they let us lord over them in most scenarios if they'd wreck us in a straight up fight. Why don't either of these countries throw their weight around with the USA if they'd fuck us in any naval scenario?

M.A.D. that's why.

No nuclear power is going to escalate provocation just because.

People like to pretend nuclear weapons and even more powerful weapons don't exist now for some reason. These things didn't just disappear after the cold war.

The cold war is only symbolically over. The threat of nuclear destruction has not changed really. It's only shifted into a more opaque geopolitical power struggle between many nations now instead of two principle nations.

The whole end of war ideal and final victor concept behind the neoconservative new american century is a farce.

It's really only the beginning. This era is going to be marked with global economic instability and the decline of the old guard (western europe) and shifting undercurrents of nationalism and revolution.

Things are going to get really ugly down the road.


Actually the Russian military command NEVER understood M.A.D. They thought it was something Western politicians told the population to make them feel safe.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

I'm not sure how we went from "carrier groups are not completely invulnerable" to "the US would get its ass kicked by China or Russia" here. So we could possibly lose a carrier group to a surprise attack. We're the only country in the world that can afford to lose carriers. Most countries that have a carrier at all only have a handful, or just one. We have 10 in service, or 19 if you include the ones that are short/vertical takeoff only.

The only advantage China has over the US is manpower. That's not meaningful if you can't bring that manpower where you need it. Russian doesn't even have a manpower advantage. The US, on the other hand, is the only country in the world that can actually project serious military force anywhere it wants to, any time it wants to. We generally do not want to spend the blood and treasure to do so, but at least we can, if we need to. Nobody else can.

Neither Russia nor China is a serious threat to the US in a conventional war under competent national leadership. That does not mean either would be a pushover if we attacked them, but I think it's more likely my pet unicorn will start shitting skittles than China or Russia will be capable of pulling off a successful invasion of the US mainland in my lifetime. Russia could barely field units in Syria, if you'll recall. Just having equipment isn't enough, it's expensive as fuck to maintain and train with military equipment even in peacetime.

A MAD scenario is a lot fuzzier. None of us know how many nukes any of the countries in question actually have, what readiness state they're in (again, nukes and ICBMs are not just build-and-store weapons), what kind of ABM is available and how it is deployed, etc. We don't know what kind of space assets are actually in play either. For all we know, the US implemented Project Thor on the DL years ago. Or maybe another country did. I find it completely unbelievable that nobody has put orbit-to-ground weapons in space yet. What I do know is the US has had a lot more money to spend on such things than anyone else.

It would not surprise me at all if Obama quietly fucked the US's nuclear readiness in the ass with a sandpaper condom, though. Good thing I don't see nuclear war on the horizon any time soon.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Quote: (08-05-2016 08:45 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

I'm not sure how we went from "carrier groups are not completely invulnerable" to "the US would get its ass kicked by China or Russia" here. So we could possibly lose a carrier group to a surprise attack. We're the only country in the world that can afford to lose carriers. Most countries that have a carrier at all only have a handful, or just one. We have 10 in service, or 19 if you include the ones that are short/vertical takeoff only.

The only advantage China has over the US is manpower. That's not meaningful if you can't bring that manpower where you need it. Russian doesn't even have a manpower advantage. The US, on the other hand, is the only country in the world that can actually project serious military force anywhere it wants to, any time it wants to.

Russia and China aren't worried about defeating the US, they're worried about being invaded by them. Within the last 3 years, there was spillage of strategic maps showing the strategy of US naval policy regarding the China mainland, it was offensive. A lot of their moves in the South China sea recently involve defeating that vulnerability. Russia/China's military doctrine wouldn't be focused on defeating the US military, but making it militarily/logistically/politically costly enough to discourage them to abandon their campaign.

China may have some other advantages besides manpower, and Russia certainly does. At the end of the Cold war, when military technology came on the black market, a lot of Western experts were amazed at the solutions the USSR came up with despite having a much smaller budget.

Quote:Quote:

We generally do not want to spend the blood and treasure to do so, but at least we can, if we need to. Nobody else can.

I know at least 2 people who worked in military intelligence during the Vietnam war who claim it was drawn out to increase the profits for military industries.

Quote:Quote:

Neither Russia nor China is a serious threat to the US in a conventional war under competent national leadership. That does not mean either would be a pushover if we attacked them, but I think it's more likely my pet unicorn will start shitting skittles than China or Russia will be capable of pulling off a successful invasion of the US mainland in my lifetime. Russia could barely field units in Syria, if you'll recall. Just having equipment isn't enough, it's expensive as fuck to maintain and train with military equipment even in peacetime.

They don't want to invade the US. They want to not be invaded by the US. The US doesn't seem to respect sovereignty much, given it's military history.

Quote:Quote:

A MAD scenario is a lot fuzzier. None of us know how many nukes any of the countries in question actually have, what readiness state they're in (again, nukes and ICBMs are not just build-and-store weapons), what kind of ABM is available and how it is deployed, etc. We don't know what kind of space assets are actually in play either. For all we know, the US implemented Project Thor on the DL years ago. Or maybe another country did. I find it completely unbelievable that nobody has put orbit-to-ground weapons in space yet. What I do know is the US has had a lot more money to spend on such things than anyone else.

Agreed

Quote:Quote:

It would not surprise me at all if Obama quietly fucked the US's nuclear readiness in the ass with a sandpaper condom, though. Good thing I don't see nuclear war on the horizon any time soon.

US nuclear readiness has actually escalated under Obama more than probably any president previously.

It began with the introduction of the Prompt Global Strike program, circumventing a previous agreement to limit nuclear arms research with Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike

More provocatively, the Aegis anti missile system has been developing anti ballistic missile capabilities in order to intercept nuclear ballistic missiles. This circumvents the MAD doctrine, and leaves rival nations vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes without a retaliatory recourse. Over the past few years, this has morphed into Aegis ashore, and now THAAD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball...nse_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_H...ea_Defense
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Retired Admiral James Lyons describes how bad things are:





This firebrand is 88 and gave that speech standing.

If only you knew how bad things really are.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Can't be that great if they struggle in 3rd world shitholes like Vietnam and afghanistan...
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Quote: (09-02-2016 09:52 PM)Screemingdead Wrote:  

Can't be that great if they struggle in 3rd world shitholes like Vietnam and afghanistan...

True, but we did manage to destroy the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, while turning China into the world's very (admittedly crony) capitalist workshop and threatening to implode Saudi Arabia with fracking.

No one bats a thousand.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Didn't our much vaunted navy actually run some boats into Iranian waters and get captured because they were too stupid to figure out how to use a map?

Or am I remembering that wrong?
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Quote: (09-02-2016 09:03 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Retired Admiral James Lyons describes how bad things are:





This firebrand is 88 and gave that speech standing.

[Image: potd.gif]

Excellent speech.
Reply

Just how "great" is the U.S. military?

Define great. If people mean the ability to blow things up and kill people, then the U.S. military is and has been the greatest military force in the history of the world for a number of decades. This is not meant negatively or as some political or social commentary, simply a cold-hard reality of what happens. If you mean the ability to achieve other political goals, then you may want to ask how great is the U.S. political structure and its interaction with other world-wide elite political structures.

Many people view warfare in terms of epic battles with large numbers of men and machines. These types of scenarios have decreased as the decades have rolled on. The capabilities of smaller forces on all terrains, to include space, that were traditionally used before epic battles are at the forefront now. Furthermore these smaller forces can deploy devastating technologies quickly.

Other countries and private companies have formidable abilities here as well, but in the end, if you screw with the U.S. military and their hands are untied you are going to lose. That is why other countries are focusing on economic warfare, cyber warfare and specific technologies in order to continually close the gap as they have been doing for decades. In 30-50 years it maybe a different story due to technological advantages in terms of raw science, engineering ability, production changes, or the human factor diminishes due to robotics.

-------
The only easy day was yesterday.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)