Which country can compete against America's military power ?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Not really a combination of the two though the politicians did start meddling in the day to day business of war which causes problems...as well as the media of course. Anyway to say the military failed....which he did is not correct.

tenaka2

I was just making the point that the country with the superior military lost the war. The thread title was 'Which country can compete againt America's military power ?'

Obviously the vietnamise did and won. However that was a long time ago so the same may not be said today.

Domestically? Nobody. The distance, oceans and our complete lack of viable choke/progress points would make us essentially impossible to invade. They would have to survive getting here only to get curb stomped immediately afterwards.

So that leaves long range tactical strikes which at worst, would take out a city or two only to have the US carpet bomb whoever it was back to the dark ages. Anyone capable of striking us from distance is probably smart enough to know that a few tactical locations are not worth their entire country.

Conflicts abroad are a completely different story. We probably lack the man power or resources to win in China. The best outcome we could hope for over there would be a 1000 year long war that eventually ended with us going home because we ran out of bullets and they still had people left.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not really a combination of the two though the politicians did start meddling in the day to day business of war which causes problems...as well as the media of course. Anyway to say the military failed....which he did is not correct.

LJS9502_basic

sounds to me like he said "Vietnam beat the US" meaning the country won the war, which is true.

And he said that "military isnt everything" before that, meaning that he wasn't saying the military failed.

He wasn't specific, while you went on the specific side and separated politics from military. Which almost never happens in modern day wars anyways.

Well im not sure what your definition of "winning" a war is. In my eyes they where all losers.

But as for the facts on this spesific subject.

Not sure who exactly "won", considering they didnt manage to unite the country again.

But USA did lose, since they didnt manage to do what they came in for. Which is stop communism from spreading in vietnam.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Half-Way"]

sounds to me like he said "Vietnam beat the US" meaning the country won the war, which is true.

And he said that "military isnt everything" before that, meaning that he wasn't saying the military failed.

He wasn't specific, while you went on the specific side and separated politics from military. Which almost never happens in modern day wars anyways.

Half-Way

Well im not sure what your definition of "winning" a war is. In my eyes they where all losers.

But as for the facts on this spesific subject.

Not sure who exactly "won", considering they didnt manage to unite the country again.

But USA did lose, since they didnt manage to do what they came in for. Which is stop communism from spreading in vietnam.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Did they win? They didn't get all of the country so I wouldn't chalk it up as win for them. The country is divided.LJS9502_basic

Well im not sure what your definition of "winning" a war is. In my eyes they where all losers.

But as for the facts on this spesific subject.

Not sure who exactly "won", considering they didnt manage to unite the country again.

But USA did lose, since they didnt manage to do what they came in for. Which is stop communism from spreading in vietnam.

the full results of the war.

Result : North Vietnamese victory
- Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
- Dissolution of South Vietnam
- Communist governments take power in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

from wikipedia.

EDIT; took me some time, but here you go ;

On 2 July 1976 the two Vietnams were joined together under communist rule and officially named the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

But the north is. Which means that they didnt stop it from spreading. Aka they lost.

and here are the full results of the war.

Result : North Vietnamese victory
- Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
- Dissolution of South Vietnam
- Communist governments take power in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

from wikipedia.

Half-Way

The US Military is nearly as large as the military of the entire European Union. So it'd take every country in the Union to even match our numbers.

It's all irrelevant though, because Nukes are the great equalizer.

Sparty_basic

[QUOTE="Sparty_basic"]

The US Military is nearly as large as the military of the entire European Union. So it'd take every country in the Union to even match our numbers.

It's all irrelevant though, because Nukes are the great equalizer.

The_Last_Ride

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

But the north is. Which means that they didnt stop it from spreading. Aka they lost.

and here are the full results of the war.

Result : North Vietnamese victory
- Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
- Dissolution of South Vietnam
- Communist governments take power in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

from wikipedia.

LJS9502_basic

look at my edit;

fail to do your objective = lose

look at my edit;

Half-Way

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

look at my edit;

LJS9502_basic

Your posts seem to indicate that you think the military sould be independant of the state. Is that correct?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

look at my edit;

tenaka2

Your posts seem to indicate that you think the military sould be independant of the state. Is that correct?

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

look at my edit;

LJS9502_basic

it happened as a result, not for no reason.

When talking about War you cant separate the military (the brute force) and the politic (the brain).

As i said earlier in this thread. There is probably no country that can match the American military.

But if you asked me who would win in a war, it would be a totally different question.

-

Why is it so hard for Americans to admit that they lost a war? Just deal with it. War isnt about having the biggest C***, its suffering. And i dont think its healthy for humans to be proud of all the money that went into War, instead of having a reasonable healthcare, education and a great government.

two things...Air superiority..and ocean supremacy...The US has the best of both...no country or coalition of countries could even come close to matching them two aspects of the USs' military might

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

look at my edit;

Half-Way

it happened as a result, not for no reason.

When talking about War you cant separate the military (the brute force) and the politic (the brain).

As i said earlier in this thread. There is probably no country that can match the American military.

But if you asked me who would win in a war, it would be a totally different question.

-

Why is it so hard for Americans to admit that they lost a war? Just deal with it. War isnt about having the biggest ****, its suffering. And i dont think its healthy for humans to be proud of all the money that went into War, instead of having a reasonable healthcare, education and a great government.

No. But ending an action while one is ahead puts the blame for the loss on those ending it...ie the politicians. I don't blame the military for the loss because they weren't losing.LJS9502_basic

I don't blame the military either, I was just responding ot the thread with regards military superiority not always being enough to win a conflict.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Okay...but that happened after all was said and done. Not during. And was the fault of politicians that bowed under pressure to end the "war".

LJS9502_basic

it happened as a result, not for no reason.

When talking about War you cant separate the military (the brute force) and the politic (the brain).

As i said earlier in this thread. There is probably no country that can match the American military.

But if you asked me who would win in a war, it would be a totally different question.

-

Why is it so hard for Americans to admit that they lost a war? Just deal with it. War isnt about having the biggest ****, its suffering. And i dont think its healthy for humans to be proud of all the money that went into War, instead of having a reasonable healthcare, education and a great government.

its not like i haven't hared that one a million times before.

"when we win, we won a war" "when we lose, we lost a conflict"

-

If everyone was going to focus on the military aspects of "winning", why not nuke each other? Because caveman with power are bad.

And your the one here talking about specifics. Why would you compare Vietnam and other wars to WW2?

Im anti-war, but even i would support it if a country would defend themselves from a future threat, or an imminent threat.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Half-Way"]

it happened as a result, not for no reason.

When talking about War you cant separate the military (the brute force) and the politic (the brain).

As i said earlier in this thread. There is probably no country that can match the American military.

But if you asked me who would win in a war, it would be a totally different question.

-

Why is it so hard for Americans to admit that they lost a war? Just deal with it. War isnt about having the biggest ****, its suffering. And i dont think its healthy for humans to be proud of all the money that went into War, instead of having a reasonable healthcare, education and a great government.

Half-Way

its not like i haven't hared that one a million times before.

"when we win, we won a war" "when we lose, we lost a conflict"

-

If everyone was going to focus on the military aspects of "winning", why not nuke each other? Because caveman with power are bad.

And your the one here talking about specifics. Why would you compare Vietnam and other wars to WW2?

Im anti-war, but even i would support it if a country would defend themselves from a future threat, or an imminent threat.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No. But ending an action while one is ahead puts the blame for the loss on those ending it...ie the politicians. I don't blame the military for the loss because they weren't losing.tenaka2

I don't blame the military either, I was just responding ot the thread with regards military superiority not always being enough to win a conflict.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Technically it wasn't a war. That aside.....I'm talking about the military aspect of winning. Not the political. And if we worried about the cost during WW2?LJS9502_basic

its not like i haven't hared that one a million times before.

"when we win, we won a war" "when we lose, we lost a conflict"

-

If everyone was going to focus on the military aspects of "winning", why not nuke each other? Because caveman with power are bad.

And your the one here talking about specifics. Why would you compare Vietnam and other wars to WW2?

Im anti-war, but even i would support it if a country would defend themselves from a future threat, or an imminent threat.

the definition of war is all i care for. As rules in war always end up being broken, and are simply there as an illusion to limit the enemy of those states who make them.

The definition is simple; War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.

Which would make the Vietnam war, a war.

-

And i seriously dubt there is any way to change someones opinion on a board like this. So at least we can agree on that.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Half-Way"]

its not like i haven't hared that one a million times before.

"when we win, we won a war" "when we lose, we lost a conflict"

-

If everyone was going to focus on the military aspects of "winning", why not nuke each other? Because caveman with power are bad.

And your the one here talking about specifics. Why would you compare Vietnam and other wars to WW2?

Im anti-war, but even i would support it if a country would defend themselves from a future threat, or an imminent threat.

Half-Way

the definition of war is all i care for. As rules in war always end up being broken, and are simply there as an illusion to limit the enemy of those states who make them.

The definition is simple; War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.

Which would make the Vietnam war, a war.

-

And i seriously dubt there is any way to change someones opinion on a board like this. So at least we can agree on that.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There are specific rules in regard to declaring war. If they are not followed it's not a war. Nonetheless, we have a philosophical difference of opinion as to what constitutes wins/losses and I dare say we won't agree. I know you aren't convincing me to change my mind.LJS9502_basic

the definition of war is all i care for. As rules in war always end up being broken, and are simply there as an illusion to limit the enemy of those states who make them.

The definition is simple; War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.

Which would make the Vietnam war, a war.

-

And i seriously dubt there is any way to change someones opinion on a board like this. So at least we can agree on that.

yeah i have hared that definition, like i said "when we win, we won a war" "when we lose, we lost a conflict":P

-

as for the other thing, i already know the problem. Its fundamental differences. Its hard to agree when the core of your and my philosophy is different.

Which means the economic, social and cultural philosophy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Half-Way"]

the definition of war is all i care for. As rules in war always end up being broken, and are simply there as an illusion to limit the enemy of those states who make them.

The definition is simple; War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.

Which would make the Vietnam war, a war.

-

And i seriously dubt there is any way to change someones opinion on a board like this. So at least we can agree on that.

Half-Way

yeah i have hared that definition, like i said "when we win, we won a war" "when we lose, we lost a conflict":P

-

as for the other thing, i already know the problem. Its fundamental differences. Its hard to agree when the core of your and my philosophy is different.

Which means the economic, social and cultural philosophy.

china or russia

Russia is still using AK-47s.there weaponry is still from the last 50 years or more

China looks tough but their weapons are like copies of the real thing

i think either China,Russia.India.and the European Union.but we would only know is by World War 3.

hmm id half to say russia or great britain.. mainly because britain has the budget, global friends, and lets not forget the challenger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYzaxW6zh3U

Russia is still using AK-47s.there weaponry is still from the last 50 years or moreberto64

In fact, the AK-47 hasn't been the main Russian arm since the late 1950s, when it was replaced by the AKM. And much of America's weaponry is quite aged. The M-16 assault rifle was accepted in 1963, the M1 Abrams tank in 1980, the B-52 in 1952, the M2 Browning .50 HMG in 1933 etc.. To add to this, much of Russia's frontline equipment is newer than that of America. Their T-90, AK-74m, BTR-90, BMP-3 and others are newer than their American counterparts.

Canada.

Canada.

andalore

yes wed walk right in with kind words jokingly take over the white house and then threaaten to burn it down again.. i mean it worked last time :P

In terms of military power I'd say there are only four possible countries/coalitions that could stand up to the US: China, Russia, the European Union, and India.

I would like to say, though, that Australia is one of the most resiliant countries in the world, ahead of places like China, USA, Russia, etc. If we ever got the nuke we would be one of the best countries to be during wartime.

• We are easy to defend, unlike countries within Europe, Africa, and Asia.
• We have a great military alliance with the USA
• We have the ability to produce enough food to feed ourselves
• We have enough resources (coal, oil, gas, etc) to continue everyday activities
• We aren't financially tied down like the USA, Europe and Japan are

In terms of military power I'd say there are only four possible countries/coalitions that could stand up to the US: China, Russia, and the European Union.

daqua_99

What's the fourth?

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

In terms of military power I'd say there are only four possible countries/coalitions that could stand up to the US: China, Russia, and the European Union.

Barbariser

What's the fourth?

The point is, it doesn't really matter if you have state of the art tanks, helicopters, aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and fighter jets if a Soviet era nuke can destroy your whole country in minutes. So, in a conventional war of course, US beats everyone... But you can't fight a conventional war against Russia or China.Blaminator1221

[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]The point is, it doesn't really matter if you have state of the art tanks, helicopters, aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and fighter jets if a Soviet era nuke can destroy your whole country in minutes. So, in a conventional war of course, US beats everyone... But you can't fight a conventional war against Russia or China.LJS9502_basic

There is no country that can compete with the US. The amount of money wasted on our military is sickening, I think it's about 680 billion a year. Since 1948 to 2010 we've spent about 86 trillion on our military. I don't think there is another military power that's as well funded as ours, so none at the moment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

EDIT: I didn't add the numbers up, It looked quite odd so I double checked.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]The point is, it doesn't really matter if you have state of the art tanks, helicopters, aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and fighter jets if a Soviet era nuke can destroy your whole country in minutes. So, in a conventional war of course, US beats everyone... But you can't fight a conventional war against Russia or China.JasonDarksavior

None, if you realized how massive the American army is, you would realize it is impossible to defeat.imaps3fanboy

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]None, if you realized how massive the American army is, you would realize it is impossible to defeat.BrianB0422

[QUOTE="BrianB0422"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]None, if you realized how massive the American army is, you would realize it is impossible to defeat.imaps3fanboy

The average American needs to learn how to differentiate between the improbable and the impossible.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="BrianB0422"] Not to mention all the private citizen gun nuts that any invader would have to fight through.Victorious_Fize

The average American needs to learn how to differentiate between the improbable and the impossible.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] Yup, invading America would be impossible.imaps3fanboy

The average American needs to learn how to differentiate between the improbable and the impossible.

Still, once you instill a cautious mentality that removes any non-factual claims (bear in mind you can't authoritatively prove the inability of invading America) will America truly be impenetrable. Now you're just giving low guard to America's enemies.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

The average American needs to learn how to differentiate between the improbable and the impossible.

Victorious_Fize

Still, once you instill a cautious mentality that removes any non-factual claims (bear in mind you can't authoritatively prove the inability of invading America) will America truly be impenetrable. Now you're just giving low guard to America's enemies.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] I meant impossible. No single country could invade the U.S.imaps3fanboy

Still, once you instill a cautious mentality that removes any non-factual claims (bear in mind you can't authoritatively prove the inability of invading America) will America truly be impenetrable. Now you're just giving low guard to America's enemies.

I'm aware of that, but that does not remove any possibility of a US invasion, it just secures your country and boost its offensives. You are giving low guard if you dismiss all possibilities (you said impossible after all) in the light of your country's power. Remember The Tortoise and the Hare?

Besides all that, a strong military doesn't necessarily equal a secure country, the 9/11 events are a good reminder.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

Still, once you instill a cautious mentality that removes any non-factual claims (bear in mind you can't authoritatively prove the inability of invading America) will America truly be impenetrable. Now you're just giving low guard to America's enemies.

Victorious_Fize

I'm aware of that, but that does not remove any possibility of a US invasion, it just secures your country and boost its offensives. You are giving low guard if you dismiss all possibilities (you said impossible after all) in the light of your country's power. Remember The Tortoise and the Hare?