[Fortis]

Didn't Russia's currency collapse last year? Outside of china financing them in warfare, how would they even fight? Furthermore, when's the last time china did any fighting outside of currency manipulation and bullying their Asian neighbors?

I am not convinced that Russia would be able to do much (outside of MAD) if USA decided they wanted a new freezer near the north pole.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Invading Russia would render the US officially insolvent. It seems more and more like the global poker game is getting to the stage of "last round, everything on the table".

[ivansirko]

How great is the US Military.

Hmmm. Let me take a stab at this.

There is a famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware. Anyone see it? Christmas night, 1776. It was effectively a last stand attack against the the combined British and Hessian forces. It was cold, they were tired, and GW was close to losing. Most of the soldiers were militia...effective volunteers who never had a "Military Career". Most were farmers. The next morning they crush the Hessian forces at the Battle of Trenton.

George Washington had a number of other attacks the next week and forced the British to retreat.

The Americans defeated the biggest power at the time, the British, with a ragtag group of militia. The group effectively became a standing army with the training of von Steuben.

I believe you are asking the wrong question. The US has Armed Forces personnel all over the world. That is for certain. Nukes, all kinds of Army toys, etc. But what if the US were invaded by a foreign power? No nukes, just conventional warfare. To me, outside of any stragglers who would turn on a dime you would effectively be fighting a 330 million person army. That kind of citizen fighting has happened in US history before. How "great" would that make the US Military?

[weambulance]

(05-30-2016 07:02 PM)Walker Wrote:  

The neo-con sales pitch that I reject is the one that claims our grunts are anything special. They're mostly just underpaid, overworked men who volunteered for a job that has had a terrible reputation for underpaying and overworking its employees for many years. It takes certain character flaws to sign yourself up for that.

That can mean being reckless enough to sign up without doing research on how bad grunts have it, despite having the option to do something else with your life. Or spineless and submissive enough that even though you know how bad the military can be, you still get peer pressured into joining by speeches and articles like Gmac's post. Or bloodthirsty enough to want a chance to kill people and get away with it to the point of not caring about anything else.

You have a shitty imagination if those are the only explanations you can think of for why people join the military.

Also,

[Engineer]

(05-30-2016 07:02 PM)Walker Wrote:  

The US armed forces are the best in the world and they're awesome because of our high-tech equipment.

It doesn't all work perfectly, but that was always out of the question. Failed experiments come with the job description of creating weapons and tools that didn't exist before, as solutions to problems that caught people off guard. No matter how smart and dedicated the experimenters are, they'll make a dud from time to time. The successful experiments are worth it.

The neo-con sales pitch that I reject is the one that claims our grunts are anything special. They're mostly just underpaid, overworked men who volunteered for a job that has had a terrible reputation for underpaying and overworking its employees for many years. It takes certain character flaws to sign yourself up for that.

That can mean being reckless enough to sign up without doing research on how bad grunts have it, despite having the option to do something else with your life. Or spineless and submissive enough that even though you know how bad the military can be, you still get peer pressured into joining by speeches and articles like Gmac's post. Or bloodthirsty enough to want a chance to kill people and get away with it to the point of not caring about anything else.

If you desire to put your life on the line for your country, but have a well-informed big picture view, you end up in a dangerous civilian job like firefighter or wilderness EMT or rope access technician or construction laborer. Reserve your gratitude for those people, not military grunts.

Disagree with you 100%. Of course there are some soft, dumb, clueless people in the military, just as there are in any field. But of every group of people I've ever met, the overwhelming majority of military "grunts" are the ones I trust. Those last four words are the highest praise I am able to give.

[MidJack]

John Reed has many strong opinions rooted very old and incomplete information.

(05-30-2016 01:07 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Reposted before, and will respost again because it's necessary.

All of you crowing about how America is the "best and the world", and then going on to cite how it's awesome because of our high-tech equipment don't get it. The Army continually comes up with ridiculously expensive solutions that do nothing in the real world. For example, those minerollers that cost 50grand each? Defeated with about a buck's worth of extra wiring.


Here's how the REAL army works, as described by a West Point grad, airborne ranger, Harvard MBA, and well known Real Estate investor:

...

[Guitarman]

(05-30-2016 06:49 PM)BlackHat Wrote:  

The military is what makes U.S the only undisputed superpower in the world. It is at least 20 years ahead of its closest rival Russia if not more, possibly even 25-30.

I THINK NOT!!! The USA is in for a rude awakening if it ever decides to take on Putin's revitalised airforce. The F-35 and F-22 will be shot out of the sky like sitting ducks.

In the last 30 years the USA has not faced a serious foe. You can't even defeat backwards countries like Afghanistan or the Islamic State. How can you hope to take on Russia with their stealth defeating radar and superior aircraft?? Plus the electronic warfare devices that can shut down the best US systems with a flick of a switch.

[Guitarman]

This is what Trump means when he says the US forces are depleted:-

F-35, can't turn, can't climb, can't fight. Russian RADAR can see it = sitting duck.

[hydrogonian]

There aren't any jack-of-all-trades firearms that are very worthwhile as such, especially when competing against task-specific firearms. It's amazing that trained soldiers as military brass would think that they could accomplish such a feat in something more complex than a rifle.

[Adonis]

(05-31-2016 01:28 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:49 PM)BlackHat Wrote:  

The military is what makes U.S the only undisputed superpower in the world. It is at least 20 years ahead of its closest rival Russia if not more, possibly even 25-30.

I THINK NOT!!! The USA is in for a rude awakening if it ever decides to take on Putin's revitalised airforce. The F-35 and F-22 will be shot out of the sky like sitting ducks.

In the last 30 years the USA has not faced a serious foe. You can't even defeat backwards countries like Afghanistan or the Islamic State. How can you hope to take on Russia with their stealth defeating radar and superior aircraft?? Plus the electronic warfare devices that can shut down the best US systems with a flick of a switch.

Oh? By all means, aware us of the order of battle for the Russian Air Force.

[MidJack]

How do you know that any of this is true? You trust The Daily Beast for military intelligence?

(05-30-2016 11:58 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  

The big problem with the US military is the new "stealth" fighters. The F-35 is widely derided as a Turkey, a poor fighter that can't climb, can't turn and is poor in the ground attack role, and spends 95% of it's operational time on the ground being serviced. And the F-22 is far too expensive, complex and in service in far too small a number. Think the ME-262 in WWII. This was a jet fighter that was a generation ahead of the British and American planes but in service in so small a number that it did not affect the course of the war.

Air power wins modern wars and the newer US planes are severely lacking. The Russians and Chinese now have radar and missile systems (VHF radar) that can see the US stealth aircraft. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...radar.html

Plus, look up the Sukhoi PAK-FA 50. A Russian stealth air superiority fighter that is every bit as good as the F-22 but cheaper to make and easier to maintain and keep in the air.

The Russian fighters already in service such as the SU-27, SU-30 and 35 are not stealthy but can literally run rings round the cumbersone F-35. In war games against Indian Sukhoi jets the F-35 lost badly.

...

And not only that but the Russians now have electronic warfare equipment that is a decade ahead of the US. To the extent that one fighter equipped with a Khibiny EW pod allegedly shut down the Aegis system on the USS Donald Cook. https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2...black-sea/

[Chaos Preacher]

What's with all this talk about who has the biggest and baddest weaponry? Massive firepower means little in these 'fourth-generation' type wars that we are currently fighting in.

[Kona]

(05-31-2016 01:28 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:49 PM)BlackHat Wrote:  

The military is what makes U.S the only undisputed superpower in the world. It is at least 20 years ahead of its closest rival Russia if not more, possibly even 25-30.

I THINK NOT!!! The USA is in for a rude awakening if it ever decides to take on Putin's revitalised airforce. The F-35 and F-22 will be shot out of the sky like sitting ducks.

In the last 30 years the USA has not faced a serious foe. You can't even defeat backwards countries like Afghanistan or the Islamic State. How can you hope to take on Russia with their stealth defeating radar and superior aircraft?? Plus the electronic warfare devices that can shut down the best US systems with a flick of a switch.

Is doing what this guy did a British thing? Is that "being cheeky" like they say?

They seem to be really critical of the us military, but never remember that theirs is awful. I was on a ship once, and we were graced with the presence of an elite British marine unit. They were called something like "the queens fierce pompom dragon men the thied" or some bullshit. One of them was complaining about ketchup. A us navy cook from nowhere america came out of the back and slapped the fuck out of that guy. It was a big deal because we weren't being gentlemanly on something.

If I were British, I would be very worried if american military equipment doesn't match up with the Russians or Chinese, considering it is (and has been in the past) the us military that will save the queen if anything happens.

Best part of the British Queens Royal Military is the Ghurkas. I wouldn't mess with them. I think they're from Nepal though.

Aloha!

[H1N1]

This 4th Generation Warfare shtick is not nearly as widely accepted as the internet likes to make out. W. Lind et all push it quite hard, in part because it helps them sell books.

The idea that we live in an era of 4th gen warfare is largely misguided and predicated on the very dubious assumption that all future wars will be of the kind we have been fighting in Iraq, Afghan etc. In these conflicts, America and The West have fared 'badly' because they have been reluctant to be seen as too brutal in wars for which there is very little appetite at home, and because they are extremely reluctant to lose soldiers unnecessarily. Britain lost less soldiers in 12 years in Iraq and Afghan than we did in the first minute of the Somme.

The philosophising that surrounds these conflicts happens in a vacuum, and it produces these overly neat, artificial theories, that are posthumously made to fit the facts by ignoring inconvenient realities. This is tremendous for 'experts', but dangerous for the rest of us who ultimately rely on our militaries to protect the freedoms we cherish.

The West wasn't 'beaten' in Afghan because it had set itself up for conventional warfare and then crumbled when faced by an unconventional threat. Afghan was a mixed success at best because there was no appetite to bring the full, awesome weight of western military might down on a few thousand guys with AKs, or for the collateral damage that such a campaign would necessarily incur. If The West wanted to win at any cost, if it were prepared to lose many more men, and kill many more civilians, then Afghan would have been totally pacified in a few months.

Unconventional warfare has always existed, with bands of irregulars always finding ways through their endless ingenuity and determination to have an effect far beyond their numbers. This is essentially what is now being repackaged as 4th Gen. warfare. But it is what the French Resistance did, The Chechens did with the Russian tanks in urban warfare, etc etc all through history. There's really very little new or original thought going on with this 4th Gen stuff. Look at how the Russians dealt with the Chechens - they adapted conventional warfare weaponary to the demands of fighting an irregular force, and after some initial setbacks they wiped the floor with the Chechens.

Conventional warfare is still the correct thing for militaries to prepare for - and what will drive the greatest technological progress which can then be applied against irregular forces.

Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

[H1N1]

The F35 will be a perfectly good aircraft when delivered. It is really only the incredibly stupid decision on the part of the British MoD to procure the F35 model C for the new generation of carriers that one should criticise. The F35 will work as it should on the US carriers, which are running nuclear power plants, and can therefore generate as much steam as they like to slingshot planes off the deck if needs be (or use electromagnetic rails). We in our infinite wisdom decided to buy a plane that can't really be launched very well from our carriers. To get around the problem, we decided that a ski jump was required. Many of the supposed problems around the F35 are really to do with out shitty procurement process, inability to build anything of our own anymore, and the general lack of imagination we show in simply copying the Americans rather than trying to address our own specific needs appropriately.

[Chaos Preacher]

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

The West wasn't 'beaten' in Afghan because it had set itself up for conventional warfare and then crumbled when faced by an unconventional threat. Afghan was a mixed success at best because there was no appetite to bring the full, awesome weight of western military might down on a few thousand guys with AKs, or for the collateral damage that such a campaign would necessarily incur. If The West wanted to win at any cost, if it were prepared to lose many more men, and kill many more civilians, then Afghan would have been totally pacified in a few months.

Afghanistan could not have been "won" merely by taking the caveman approach and killing more people and smashing more stuff. Destruction does not equal victory.

It's a very delicate situation. Increasing brutality would simply increase terrorism, instability, and bring humanitarian, political, economic and diplomatic crises past the boiling point. (And do you think hordes of guys willing to blow themselves up for their ideology will be "scared straight" by the US dropping more bombs? Get real.)

Quote:

Look at how the Russians dealt with the Chechens - they adapted conventional warfare weaponary to the demands of fighting an irregular force, and after some initial setbacks they wiped the floor with the Chechens.

Yeah, I guess they "won," but they did so very inefficiently. It took them over 9 years and over 7,000 men (more than the U.S. has lost in the entirety of BOTH the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). And Chechnya is many times smaller, both in size and population than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[H1N1]

(05-31-2016 05:27 PM)Chaos Preacher Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

The West wasn't 'beaten' in Afghan because it had set itself up for conventional warfare and then crumbled when faced by an unconventional threat. Afghan was a mixed success at best because there was no appetite to bring the full, awesome weight of western military might down on a few thousand guys with AKs, or for the collateral damage that such a campaign would necessarily incur. If The West wanted to win at any cost, if it were prepared to lose many more men, and kill many more civilians, then Afghan would have been totally pacified in a few months.

Afghanistan could not have been "won" merely by taking the caveman approach and killing more people and smashing more stuff. Destruction does not equal victory.

It's a very delicate situation. Increasing brutality would simply increase terrorism, instability, and bring humanitarian, political, economic and diplomatic crises past the boiling point. (And do you think hordes of guys willing to blow themselves up for their ideology will be "scared straight" by the US dropping more bombs? Get real.)

Quote:

Look at how the Russians dealt with the Chechens - they adapted conventional warfare weaponary to the demands of fighting an irregular force, and after some initial setbacks they wiped the floor with the Chechens.

Yeah, I guess they "won," but they did so very inefficiently. It took them over 9 years and over 7,000 men (more than the U.S. has lost in the entirety of BOTH the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). And Chechnya, is many times smaller, both in size and population than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

You're quoting me, but at best your points seem to be tangential, and at worst a complete distortion of any point I've made.

[weambulance]

I have a question for you, OP: why the hell did you start this thread if you already know everything?

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

First, excellent points about "4th generation" nonsense. The idea that conventional nation-to-nation warfare is dead and that all the conflicts of the future are necessarily "asymmetric" wars against non-governmental actors is an exceedingly dumb one and characteristic of so much of today's web chatter (not just on this subject).

Regarding a hypothetical conflict between the US and either Russia or China: wouldn't the American ability to inflict staggering casualties on the enemy, rapidly and by purely conventional means, be able to pacify even a military ready to bear quite extraordinary losses? The Japanese had a tolerance for loss unmatched by anyone, but they had to surrender in the face of the demonstration of a qualitatively different American nuclear capability. My sense is that US weapons technology is so advanced that it can, if called upon, inflict virtually nuclear-level losses on the enemy through purely conventional means. But I would like to know what you think.

[Guitarman]

(05-31-2016 03:51 PM)P Bateman Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 01:28 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:49 PM)BlackHat Wrote:  

The military is what makes U.S the only undisputed superpower in the world. It is at least 20 years ahead of its closest rival Russia if not more, possibly even 25-30.

I THINK NOT!!! The USA is in for a rude awakening if it ever decides to take on Putin's revitalised airforce. The F-35 and F-22 will be shot out of the sky like sitting ducks.

In the last 30 years the USA has not faced a serious foe. You can't even defeat backwards countries like Afghanistan or the Islamic State. How can you hope to take on Russia with their stealth defeating radar and superior aircraft?? Plus the electronic warfare devices that can shut down the best US systems with a flick of a switch.

Oh? By all means, aware us of the order of battle for the Russian Air Force.

Read my previous post for more information and just look up SU-27 and SU-30, especially airshow footage. Show me a US fighter that can manoeuvre like that!

[dain_bramage]

Rules of modern warfare:

Don't march on Moscow in the winter, do not engage in a land war with China.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-31-2016 06:21 PM)dain_bramage Wrote:  

Rules of modern warfare:

[Guitarman]

(05-31-2016 04:43 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 01:28 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:49 PM)BlackHat Wrote:  

The military is what makes U.S the only undisputed superpower in the world. It is at least 20 years ahead of its closest rival Russia if not more, possibly even 25-30.

I THINK NOT!!! The USA is in for a rude awakening if it ever decides to take on Putin's revitalised airforce. The F-35 and F-22 will be shot out of the sky like sitting ducks.

In the last 30 years the USA has not faced a serious foe. You can't even defeat backwards countries like Afghanistan or the Islamic State. How can you hope to take on Russia with their stealth defeating radar and superior aircraft?? Plus the electronic warfare devices that can shut down the best US systems with a flick of a switch.

Is doing what this guy did a British thing? Is that "being cheeky" like they say?

They seem to be really critical of the us military, but never remember that theirs is awful. I was on a ship once, and we were graced with the presence of an elite British marine unit. They were called something like "the queens fierce pompom dragon men the thied" or some bullshit. One of them was complaining about ketchup. A us navy cook from nowhere america came out of the back and slapped the fuck out of that guy. It was a big deal because we weren't being gentlemanly on something.

If I were British, I would be very worried if american military equipment doesn't match up with the Russians or Chinese, considering it is (and has been in the past) the us military that will save the queen if anything happens.

Best part of the British Queens Royal Military is the Ghurkas. I wouldn't mess with them. I think they're from Nepal though.

Aloha!

So all you have at answer is "ketchup"???

Another military fact I'd like to draw your attention to if you bring up the subject of Britain versus the US is the shortcomings in US tanks. In the second Gulf war no less than 16 Abrahms II tanks were knocked out even by the vastly inferior Iraqi military.

Contrast that to the amazing British Challenger II tank of which NONE were knocked out in the second Gulf war.

Read this if you think the US military is the best in the world;

"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[20] The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

70 RPG's!!! Multiple MLAN strikes! The Challenger II is the best main battle tank in the world (although, the Russian Armata T-14 may have eclipsed it now).

I'm not trying to troll anyone. Just saying that the USA military may not be as strong as you think it is due to decades of compacency. OK, you can kick crap out of some middle eastern country but against an equivalent or superior military such as China or Russia?? Don't be so cocky.

That is why Trump says the US military is "depleted".

Too many years of assuming that you are "the best", whilst making no real progress. in the mean time the Russians and Chinese have vastly improved their forces.

This is why Trump is wanting to be friends with Putin.

And don't get me started on how far the Russians are ahead of the USA in EW!!!

[Chaos Preacher]

Quote:

First, excellent points about "4th generation" nonsense. The idea that conventional nation-to-nation warfare is dead and that all the conflicts of the future are necessarily "asymmetric" wars against non-governmental actors is an exceedingly dumb one and characteristic of so much of today's web chatter (not just on this subject).

I haven't said that this type of warfare will never happen again. But the way the world is interconnected now makes the kind of wars we used to have in the past extremely unlikely. It's rather fantastical to think that there will be some type of Great War between any of the major powers at any point in the foreseeable future.

[Guitarman]

(05-31-2016 06:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

First, excellent points about "4th generation" nonsense. The idea that conventional nation-to-nation warfare is dead and that all the conflicts of the future are necessarily "asymmetric" wars against non-governmental actors is an exceedingly dumb one and characteristic of so much of today's web chatter (not just on this subject).

Regarding a hypothetical conflict between the US and either Russia or China: wouldn't the American ability to inflict staggering casualties on the enemy, rapidly and by purely conventional means, be able to pacify even a military ready to bear quite extraordinary losses? The Japanese had a tolerance for loss unmatched by anyone, but they had to surrender in the face of the demonstration of a qualitatively different American nuclear capability. My sense is that US weapons technology is so advanced that it can, if called upon, inflict virtually nuclear-level losses on the enemy through purely conventional means. But I would like to know what you think.

Not true at all! US military technology (and European for that matter!) has virtually stagnated for two decades, while the Russians and Chinese have caught up.

Trump knows this and this is why he says the US military is "depleted".