What do you think is the worlds best military?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

NicktehImperial

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

hojobojo

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

1: US military defeats chinese military with very few casualties

2: Insurgency involving millions of people expels US military occupation forces

3: China is thrown into another bloody civil war

4: chinese defectors invade Taiwan

5: US navy carries out strikes in south east china

6: this goes on until another government is established

I second that. But I could aimagine a bit of a larger scale land war for some reason, IDK.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both armstied behind their back.

NicktehImperial

The Romans never had problems ith insurgencies, but they ****ing nailed people to the cross and set them on fire... So harsherness=no insurgencies.

If the US was harch though, the world would turn on us...

Of course, this doesn't mean the Romans were morally right in their tactics. And the problem is, the US has tried to create a form of "politically correct" war. Which in the long run does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone and merely results in more death and destruction.The US should simply be more surgical with its forces and respect foreign interests more often. But it isn't. It's politicians use the military like a drunken frat boy uses his car to go street racing down a city avenue at rush hour. Current American politicians are irresponcible and foolish, and it is largely the fault of Americans they are this way.

And by the way, the US is already very harsh. The world hasn't turned on it because no one else has the capability to blow up the planet 7 times over in less than 5 minutes.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

mig_killer2

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

hojobojo

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

1: US military defeats chinese military with very few casualties

2: Insurgency involving millions of people expels US military occupation forces

3: China is thrown into another bloody civil war

4: chinese defectors invade Taiwan

5: US navy carries out strikes in south east china

6: this goes on until another government is established

I second that. But I could aimagine a bit of a larger scale land war for some reason, IDK.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

DivergeUnify

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

hojobojo

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

1: US military defeats chinese military with very few casualties

2: Insurgency involving millions of people expels US military occupation forces

3: China is thrown into another bloody civil war

4: chinese defectors invade Taiwan

5: US navy carries out strikes in south east china

6: this goes on until another government is established

I second that. But I could aimagine a bit of a larger scale land war for some reason, IDK.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both armstied behind their back.

CaptHawkeye

The Romans never had problems ith insurgencies, but they ****ing nailed people to the cross and set them on fire... So harsherness=no insurgencies.

If the US was harch though, the world would turn on us...

Of course, this doesn't mean the Romans were morally right in their tactics. And the problem is, the US has tried to create a form of "politically correct" war. Which in the long run does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone and merely results in more death and destruction.The US should simply be more surgical with its forces and respect foreign interests more often. But it isn't. It's politicians use the military like a drunken frat boy uses his car to go street racing down a city avenue at rush hour. Current American politicians are irresponcible and foolish, and it is largely the fault of Americans they are this way.

And by the way, the US is already very harsh. The world hasn't turned on it because no one else has the capability to blow up the planet 7 times over in less than 5 minutes.

Russia?

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. NicktehImperial

WTF?

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

WTF?

hell, their military is in ****ing shambles. Dont give me any crap about their nukes. we can take out their nuclear arsenal after we took out their early warning stations, which are in shambles

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both armstied behind their back.

CaptHawkeye

The Romans never had problems ith insurgencies, but they ****ing nailed people to the cross and set them on fire... So harsherness=no insurgencies.

If the US was harch though, the world would turn on us...

Of course, this doesn't mean the Romans were morally right in their tactics. And the problem is, the US has tried to create a form of "politically correct" war. Which in the long run does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone and merely results in more death and destruction.The US should simply be more surgical with its forces and respect foreign interests more often. But it isn't. It's politicians use the military like a drunken frat boy uses his car to go street racing down a city avenue at rush hour. Current American politicians are irresponcible and foolish, and it is largely the fault of Americans they are this way.

And by the way, the US is already very harsh. The world hasn't turned on it because no one else has the capability to blow up the planet 7 times over in less than 5 minutes.

I thougt you were an American? Or are you an Army Surgeon in the mountains of Korea?

Well its not like we go to wars all the time, when my dad was in they just went to Bosnia to stop the fighting there, and Somalia to rescue hostages, everywhere else was just to visit on their patrol of the Med.

I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

WTF?

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

mig_killer2

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both arms tied behind their back.

hojobojo

We were talking about what would happen if US and China got into a war

1: US military defeats chinese military with very few casualties

2: Insurgency involving millions of people expels US military occupation forces

3: China is thrown into another bloody civil war

4: chinese defectors invade Taiwan

5: US navy carries out strikes in south east china

6: this goes on until another government is established

I second that. But I could aimagine a bit of a larger scale land war for some reason, IDK.

Russia? hojobojo

Modern Russian ICBM's are pathetic. Much of their 80's inventory is made up of cheap over the counter technology that was sensationalized by US media as a result of Cold War rivalry.

I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both armstied behind their back.

NicktehImperial

The Romans never had problems ith insurgencies, but they ****ing nailed people to the cross and set them on fire... So harsherness=no insurgencies.

If the US was harch though, the world would turn on us...

Of course, this doesn't mean the Romans were morally right in their tactics. And the problem is, the US has tried to create a form of "politically correct" war. Which in the long run does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone and merely results in more death and destruction.The US should simply be more surgical with its forces and respect foreign interests more often. But it isn't. It's politicians use the military like a drunken frat boy uses his car to go street racing down a city avenue at rush hour. Current American politicians are irresponcible and foolish, and it is largely the fault of Americans they are this way.

And by the way, the US is already very harsh. The world hasn't turned on it because no one else has the capability to blow up the planet 7 times over in less than 5 minutes.

I thougt you were an American? Or are you an Army Surgeon in the mountains of Korea?

Well its not like we go to wars all the time, when my dad was in they just went to Bosnia to stop the fighting there, and Somalia to rescue hostages, everywhere else was just to visit on their patrol of the Med.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. EboyLOL

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. hojobojo

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. mig_killer2

WTF?

hell, their military is in ****ing shambles. Dont give me any crap about their nukes. we can take out their nuclear arsenal after we took out their early warning stations, which are in shambles

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. hojobojo

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

All able bodied russian adults served in the military at some point, so they received, atleast basic military training. If war were to break out and a draft instituted, russia would have a pretty good size pool of soldiers that don't need too much training since they have gotten it already. Russia also has better generals, and very good intelligent on all NATO countries and even non NATO countries. There is more to war than firepower or man power. muscleserge

No....first you have to have the capability of arming those people and the Russian economy is not so good. The country is not that strong anymore.

Guess what? All those NATO countries have intell on Russia as well.....

Let's see.....what else is there if you don't have firepower or manpower? Rock, paper, scissors?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

WTF?

hell, their military is in ****ing shambles. Dont give me any crap about their nukes. we can take out their nuclear arsenal after we took out their early warning stations, which are in shambles

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

hojobojo

The US military absolutely destroyed the North and Vietkong, the determining factor was the will to fight, which the US populance and government did not want to continue. It was purely political.

As for Iraq, it's an insurgency, not an army. The US has lost under 5000 in four years, quite remarkable when you look at past wars and conflicts.

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

hojobojo

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]we're talking about the insurgency too?

if there was an insurgency then the US WOULD lose.

Um, dude. Insurgency is an issue of occupation. If your enemy has forced you into a position where you need to resort to guerilla tactics to merely SURVIVE, then you definantly haven't won the "Best Military" title.

It's also rather stupid to judge the capabilites of the US military upon wars which they clearly forced themselves to fight with both armstied behind their back.

DivergeUnify

The Romans never had problems ith insurgencies, but they ****ing nailed people to the cross and set them on fire... So harsherness=no insurgencies.

If the US was harch though, the world would turn on us...

Of course, this doesn't mean the Romans were morally right in their tactics. And the problem is, the US has tried to create a form of "politically correct" war. Which in the long run does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone and merely results in more death and destruction.The US should simply be more surgical with its forces and respect foreign interests more often. But it isn't. It's politicians use the military like a drunken frat boy uses his car to go street racing down a city avenue at rush hour. Current American politicians are irresponcible and foolish, and it is largely the fault of Americans they are this way.

And by the way, the US is already very harsh. The world hasn't turned on it because no one else has the capability to blow up the planet 7 times over in less than 5 minutes.

I thougt you were an American? Or are you an Army Surgeon in the mountains of Korea?

Well its not like we go to wars all the time, when my dad was in they just went to Bosnia to stop the fighting there, and Somalia to rescue hostages, everywhere else was just to visit on their patrol of the Med.

[QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. mig_killer2

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

typical American answer. What do you think the Russians are stupid. There are so many nukes hidden in siberia that the retaliation would turn all of the US into complete wasteland. Remember Russia has been around for far longer than the US, and has always been a powerful country, and a major power of europe.muscleserge

Russian has too much internal confict now....and they haven't always been powerful....miscalculations and the weather helped Russia a few times.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. EboyLOL

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

[QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. DivergeUnify

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

I thought it was going quite bad well for the British anyway

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]typical American answer. What do you think the Russians are stupid. There are so many nukes hidden in siberia that the retaliation would turn all of the US into complete wasteland. Remember Russia has been around for far longer than the US, and has always been a powerful country, and a major power of europe.LJS9502_basic

Russian has too much internal confict now....and they haven't always been powerful....miscalculations and the weather helped Russia a few times.

The Captain needs to come back to this thread to kick someones ass and then explode it up....

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. hojobojo

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

Bad examples. Bear in mind when analyzing capabilities of your opponent, he has his good and bad days. And to assume that your enemy will always fight you at the low end of his spectrum is foolish.

Think about the high end of the spectrum for starters. US forces have occupied and pacified countries with bitter political and social rivalries before. IE: Post War Japan/Post Spanish War Phillipines.

Now the low end of the spectrum is indeed Vietnam and Afghanistan. But ask yourself WHY these wars failed. Was it because US military forces were defeated in spectacularly one sided victories by the North Vietnamese? Or was it because American political opinion turned against the war and the White House no longer saw any long term benefit?

[QUOTE="hojobojo"]

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

LJS9502_basic

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]typical American answer. What do you think the Russians are stupid. There are so many nukes hidden in siberia that the retaliation would turn all of the US into complete wasteland. Remember Russia has been around for far longer than the US, and has always been a powerful country, and a major power of europe.NicktehImperial

Russian has too much internal confict now....and they haven't always been powerful....miscalculations and the weather helped Russia a few times.

The Captain needs to come back to this thread to kick someones ass and then explode it up....

Excuse me? I posted the truth...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hojobojo"]

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

EboyLOL

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

Reread what I said....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hojobojo"]

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

EboyLOL

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

We sure did get our asses kicked, with 3 million of our enemy's dying, and two Marine Snipers wiping out an entire company of NVA, and an Army Soldier killing 14 NVA with an etool.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. DivergeUnify

WTF?

hell, their military is in ****ing shambles. Dont give me any crap about their nukes. we can take out their nuclear arsenal after we took out their early warning stations, which are in shambles

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. hojobojo

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

I thought it was going quite bad well for the British anyway

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

WTF?

hell, their military is in ****ing shambles. Dont give me any crap about their nukes. we can take out their nuclear arsenal after we took out their early warning stations, which are in shambles

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

WTF?

hell, their military is in ****ing shambles. Dont give me any crap about their nukes. we can take out their nuclear arsenal after we took out their early warning stations, which are in shambles

[QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. DivergeUnify

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

I thought it was going quite bad well for the British anyway

Afganistan wasn't much of a war, just driving out some terrorists, and people dare to call it "Vietnam 2"...

What do you think is the worlds best military. It would be presumptious. In the end it doesn't matter anyway. It's about volume.

You figure if they have have 1,000 and you have 10,000 men each shoulder should get 1 kill minimum before they are killed. So you have about 9,000 replacements. 10,000 chances to kill 1,000 men. (It's an example)

Then you have to shore up the amount of enemy aircraft, watercraft and ground vehicles compared to yours. Also satalites, missle batteries, long range weaponry.

The main reason American tankswere able to overwhelm Germany's hardware was because america had far superior manufacturing capability. The machinery was inferior but the volume was superior. America could Manufacture, ship and deploy severaltanks & aircraftfaster than germany could make one tank. It didn't matter how many the nazis destroyed. America had more than the naziscould EVER destroy and the nazis hadminimal replacements. It was the volume that defeated the tiger tank. It had nothing to do with whos tank was better. Plus the tank busters made it impossible for the nazis to safely move tanks around out in the open.

You might have 1 unitbut Ihave 20. You might be able get 2 maybe 5 if your lucky but you won't win, youwouldn't have enough time to shoot everyone. Everytime you fire you give away your position so it's only a short time until a barrage of gunfire will be returned to you.

The capability of transporting and deploying men & equipment today is a few hours to a few days maximum. Not months. So without a large volume of support you don't stand a chance.

I would say the United States Forces and any military similar is the bestbecauseof the volume of equipment and deployment cabability ofaircraft, armor, infantry and watercraft. Plus I think the U.S Army alone has the largest division strength in the world.

Airborne aint no big deal. You go to chute training and if you pass they give you jump wings and bands for your shoulder that Say AIRBORNE. Anybody can be airborne. Doesn't mean anything other than they may assign you to an airborne unit and drop you into territory that they can't bypass by other means. Just because you can use a chute doesn't mean you're a commando.

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. muscleserge

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hojobojo"]

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

NicktehImperial

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

We sure did get our asses kicked, with 3 million of our enemy's dying, and two Marine Snipers wiping out an entire company of NVA, and an Army Soldier killing 14 NVA with an etool.

[QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. CaptHawkeye

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

Bad examples. Bear in mind when analyzing capabilities of your opponent, he has his good and bad days. And to assume that your enemy will always fight you at the low end of his spectrum is foolish.

Think about the high end of the spectrum for starters. US forces have occupied and pacified countries with bitter political and social rivalries before. IE: Post War Japan/Post Spanish War Phillipines.

Now the low end of the spectrum is indeed Vietnam and Afghanistan. But ask yourself WHY these wars failed. Was it because US military forces were defeated in spectacularly one sided victories by the North Vietnamese? Or was it because American political opinion turned against the war and the White House no longer saw any long term benefit?

If you're going to say that then it's bascially the same with Afgahn-Russian war, Russians were losing too many men and there was no point in carrying on fighting

typical American answer.muscleserge

Gee, that's a cute little ad hominem you've got there.

What do you think the Russians are stupid. There are so many nukes hidden in siberia that the retaliation would turn all of the US into complete wasteland.

Proof of this?

Remember Russia has been around for far longer than the US,

This means absolutely nothing.

and has always been a powerful country, and a major power of europe.

I'm sure RussianCzar Nicholas II would piss himself laughing if he heard that.

We had to prove ourselves in 2 of the hardest battles we fought before France agreed to fight. DivergeUnify

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hojobojo"]

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

mig_killer2

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

We sure did get our asses kicked, with 3 million of our enemy's dying, and two Marine Snipers wiping out an entire company of NVA, and an Army Soldier killing 14 NVA with an etool.

Its like a portable shovel thing that US troops use. My dad has one in the basement, you can kill people with it too.

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hojobojo"]

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

NicktehImperial

The Iraq military was soundly defeated. The war won. The military did not lose Viet Nam...the politicians did.

We sure did get our asses kicked, with 3 million of our enemy's dying, and two Marine Snipers wiping out an entire company of NVA, and an Army Soldier killing 14 NVA with an etool.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]I would say Russia is the first, followed by the brits and the US. Sure looking statistically you might disagree. But look at it this way, russian military machine is more efficient, reliable, and much cheaper. a Mig-29 is still a better plane than the F-15, F-16 and F18, and costs 2x less to produce, same goes to the AK-74. Then Russia has more military history than the US, The US is too young to have a comparable military history to Europe. Europe has long standing traditions and proven standards for its generals. Than the Russians aren't afraid to get dirty, I mean look at Iraq vs Afganistan, The Russians didn't care a lot about civilians, if they got info that there were enemies hiding in a village they would just bomb it. This thread is really pro American, and it is clearly visible that the American propaganda machine is doing its job pretty well. hojobojo

Post-Soviet Union Russia is extremely weak. Half of it's economy is posssessed by the mob, and corruption runs rampant. They don't have the money to support a strong military. Russia's population is decreasing. It gets weaker and weaker every day... and citing the fact that Russia has a bigger "military history" then the US is meaningless... the US is a much younger country then Russia, and unlike Russia, is much stronger. You are also forgetting Russian military defeats... are you familiar with the Afghan-Russian War?

Although I agreee with you, I have to say Vietnam? Iraq?

Bad examples. Bear in mind when analyzing capabilities of your opponent, he has his good and bad days. And to assume that your enemy will always fight you at the low end of his spectrum is foolish.

Think about the high end of the spectrum for starters. US forces have occupied and pacified countries with bitter political and social rivalries before. IE: Post War Japan/Post Spanish War Phillipines.

Now the low end of the spectrum is indeed Vietnam and Afghanistan. But ask yourself WHY these wars failed. Was it because US military forces were defeated in spectacularly one sided victories by the North Vietnamese? Or was it because American political opinion turned against the war and the White House no longer saw any long term benefit?

If you're going to say that then it's bascially the same with Afgahn-Russian war, Russians were losing too many men and there was no point in carrying on fighting

What do you think is the worlds best military. It would be presumptious. In the end it doesn't matter anyway. It's about volume.

You figure if they have have 1,000 and you have 10,000 men each shoulder should get 1 kill minimum before they are killed. So you have about 9,000 replacements. 10,000 chances to kill 1,000 men. (It's an example)

Then you have to shore up the amount of enemy aircraft, watercraft and ground vehicles compared to yours. Also satalites, missle batteries, long range weaponry.

The main reason American tankswere able to overwhelm Germany's hardware was because america had far superior manufacturing capability. The machinery was inferior but the volume was superior. America could Manufacture, ship and deploy severaltanks & aircraftfaster than germany could make one tank. It didn't matter how many the nazis destroyed. America had more than the naziscould EVER destroy and the nazis hadminimal replacements. It was the volume that defeated the tiger tank. It had nothing to do with whos tank was better. Plus the tank busters made it impossible for the nazis to safely move tanks around out in the open.

You might have 1 unitbut Ihave 20. You might be able get 2 maybe 5 if your lucky but you won't win, youwouldn't have enough time to shoot everyone. Everytime you fire you give away your position so it's only a short time until a barrage of gunfire will be returned to you.

The capability of transporting and deploying men & equipment today is a few hours to a few days maximum. Not months. So without a large volume of support you don't stand a chance.

I would say the United States Forces and any military similar is the bestbecauseof the volume of equipment and deployment cabability ofaircraft, armor, infantry and watercraft. Plus I think the U.S Army alone has the largest division strength in the world.

Airborne aint no big deal. You go to chute training and if you pass they give you jump wings and bands for your shoulder that Say AIRBORNE. Anybody can be airborne. Doesn't mean anything other than they may assign you to an airborne unit and drop you into territory that they can't bypass by other means. Just because you can use a chute doesn't mean you're a commando.

MagnumPI

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]typical American answer. What do you think the Russians are stupid. There are so many nukes hidden in siberia that the retaliation would turn all of the US into complete wasteland. Remember Russia has been around for far longer than the US, and has always been a powerful country, and a major power of europe.LJS9502_basic

Russian has too much internal confict now....and they haven't always been powerful....miscalculations and the weather helped Russia a few times.

We had to prove ourselves in 2 of the hardest battles we fought before France agreed to fight.
DivergeUnify

Not to mention they had ulterior motives....