Could the USA beat a real enemy?

[Marxist Nutter]

It seems to me the US military is pretty damn pathetic. Not only did they get their asses kicked by a bunch of Asain Rice farmers in the 60s, they also only seem (recently) to bring themselves to attack nations with no defensive capabilities (like Iraq) and yet they still have not secured that nation 100% either!! Like a shy school girl the USA runs scared of any conflict with a nation that can defend itself. It seems to not dare anger N.Korea and one need only cast their minds back to the 20th century where the USA spent most of its time cowering in the fear it might actually have to fight an enemy of equal strength.

What this tells me is the US miltary can only bully people. It seems only interested in attacking countries with no army to defend themselves and even then ( as with Vietnam) they still get their asses kicked! I mean lets face it this is a nation so scared to get it's hands dirty and actually fight., it opted to nuke Japanese civilians rather than fight their army which showed superior skill and determination. Again, the 1991 Iraq conflict where US (and British) forces dare not leave the safety of their fighter/bombers as they declared a victory over a nation that had very little airforce!

Now I wonder what would happen if an alliance between Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea attacked the USA. Then we will see what these American 'heroes' are really made of (cowardice and bullcrap must likely). I reckon they might just about have enough time to soil themselves before learning to speak Russian!

[DougieG]

There's a lot of truth in that, although arguably the type of warfare that a modern army faces in situations like Iraq is a pretty much unwinnable situation. An army fighting against an entire country has to effectively neutralise its entire population, which is nigh on impossible. I actually think that were the US military to be engaged in full warfare with Russia or North Korea, they would do much better than they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, as it would be a reversion to the more indirect 'total war' as opposed to the efforts to combat direct total war in the form of guerilla warfare.

[Marxist Nutter]

There's a lot of truth in that, although arguably the type of warfare that a modern army faces in situations like Iraq is a pretty much unwinnable situation. An army fighting against an entire country has to effectively neutralise its entire population, which is nigh on impossible. I actually think that were the US military to be engaged in full warfare with Russia or North Korea, they would do much better than they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, as it would be a reversion to the more indirect 'total war' as opposed to the efforts to combat direct total war in the form of guerilla warfare.

I actually agree the US military despite its technological advancement remains still entirely geared up for 19th/20th century style warfare of state against state. This I think, is a major issue here. However I feel forced to highlight the irony that it was the AMERICANS WHO INVENTED guerilla warfare fighting against Britain!!

[DougieG]

I actually agree the US military despite its technological advancement remains still entirely geared up for 19th/20th century style warfare of state against state. This I think, is a major issue here. However I feel forced to higlight the irony that it was the AMERICANS WHO INVENTED guerilla warfare fighting against Britain!!

To an extent, yes, although arguably it was around long before the War of Independance. Guerilla warfare certainly did not begin in the Boer War, however!

The problem for the military is the NATURE of the wars. Without becoming totally inhumane, there is no way to combat guerillas effectively. Search and destroy failed in Vietnam, and Take and Hold is hardly groundbreaking new strategy. It is perhaps inevitable, given the nature of a national military, that it cannot adapt effectively.

I think of it as a kind of rock paper scissors - guerillas beat armies, armies beat politics (and other armies), politics beats guerillas. An army is able at any time to take control of its nation, but does not do so for many reasons. Meanwhile, politics and changing attitudes and ideologies are the only way to combat guerilla troops. As long as Middle Easterns feel assaulted and hard done by the USA, there will be people willing to take up arms to fight them.

[Marxist Nutter]

To an extent, yes, although arguably it was around long before the War of Independance. Guerilla warfare certainly did not begin in the Boer War, however!

.

Okay then, first modern Guerilla War!

[DC]

Now I wonder what would happen if an alliance between Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea attacked the USA. Then we will see what these American 'heroes' are really made of (cowardice and bullcrap must likely). I reckon they might just about have enough time to soil themselves before learning to speak Russian!

An unlikely Alliance lol, but anyway, I doubt they could defeat America, these countries would have to fight a conventional war, which of course, America is awesome at fighting.

The main reason they have difficulty in fighting asymmetrical warfare is that the US army simply hadn't adapted since Korea. The Take and Hold strategy I believe was first used by Chinese Nationalist against the remnants of Mao's CCP before the Long March, which is what forced them to retreat and nearly defeated the CCP permanently. Why it's never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan is beyond me. Personally I doubt it could be used in Vietnam, the terrain was simply too difficult. Guerrillas are like a disease, and quarantines should be used to deal with them. Secure an area, and lock it off from unsecured areas, eventually chasing the guerrillas out into the open.

[Marxist Nutter]

An unlikely Alliance lol, but anyway, I doubt they could defeat America, these countries would have to fight a conventional war, which of course, America is awesome at fighting.

Are they? We've never seen any evidence of this. In WW2 ONE German worth roughly 3Yank soldiers - not so awesome really!

The main reason they have difficulty in fighting asymmetrical warfare is that the US army simply hadn't adapted since Korea.

Or they are just plain useless or cowardly

[DC]

Conventional warfare is rarely based on the ability of a nation's troops. I'm talking about the USA's mechanical superiority, her air power is unmatched. Furthermore, US troops are much better armed than most other armies, however they've never used the AUG for some reason, which is especially distressing for Australian troops, because we've had to downgrade to the M4 in order to match NATO's ammunition. In terms of troop quality, the US has never been very high up, however, they have a lot of relatively well trained soldiers who are extremely well equipped and supported, hence the apparent US military might.

I say the Alliance is unlikely, as China and Russia have never got on well, and Iran has always been an outsider, however much it deals with the Russians.

[Marxist Nutter]

Conventional warfare is rarely based on the ability of a nation's troops. I'm talking about the USA's mechanical superiority, her air power is unmatched. Furthermore, US troops are much better armed than most other armies, however they've never used the AUG for some reason, which is especially distressing for Australian troops, because we've had to downgrade to the M4 in order to match NATO's ammunition. In terms of troop quality, the US has never been very high up, however, they have a lot of relatively well trained soldiers who are extremely well equipped and supported, hence the apparent US military might.

I say the Alliance is unlikely, as China and Russia have never got on well, and Iran has always been an outsider, however much it deals with the Russians.

O yes is a very random hypothetical. However there was a rationale behind my choice of nations. China pretty much owns the USA right now anyway. if the US had to fight another war they simply could not afford it, they would have to borrow money. Now the only people with enough money to lend the yanks the amount they would need to fight China IS China!! China could simply bankrupt the USA and let Iran an Russia do the rest - no sweat!

[Marxist Nutter]

This is all of concern t us Brits who seem to rely on the USA to defend us (under invest in our own troops who do not have enough equipment to wage real war). Hence I think united European armed forces is desperately needed should we face a REAL threat. The yanks can barley take care of themselves and quite rightly we are not their responsibility

[DC]

While there's no doubt China is certainly the new super power, personally I'm very skeptical of its military strength. I don't doubt it could rule Asia if it wanted to, but I doubt it could do it for very long. While it is modernising, China's military is still far behind many other nations of the Western world, and the US still has sea might. China could go island hopping, but it'd be as bogged down as the US was in Vietnam. It could win in the short to medium term, but as long as the US mainland was held, China would lose in the long term, and once it began to lose, the war would be over very quickly. Asia is the next battleground, and the US withdrawal from there is very disturbing.

[Tantal]

The idiocy of the premise is beyond description. First, how many troops would be needed? How many soldiers (and support personnel for food, fuel, ammo, etc.) would be needed to take and hold a nation geographically as large as the U.S.? Second, aside from our military, they'd be invading a nation of 80,000,000 gun owners. This includes veterans, cops, hunters, gang-bangers, etc. The guerilla warfare alone would be brutal.....that's for the ones that made it past our military.

Now, since it's going to take God knows how many troops, how are they going to get here? The only way is by sea. We have satellites that can watch a Chinaman eat his lunch on the docks, so a forming flotilla large enough to mount an invasion wouldn't go unnoticed. Once they start sailing east, we'd probably let them get to about Hawaii.....maybe. In case you've been out of the loop, the U.S. still maintains the largest, most advanced Navy in the world. Unheeded warnings to turn around would result in us deep-sixin' some **** somewhere between Pearl and California. Between the carriers, submarines, and guided missle frigates, it would make Germany's U-boat campaign look like a picnic. That's not even getting into our absolute air superiority. We have the finest pilots in the world and the most advanced aircraft. Even countries that we sell aircraft to don't get the best engines, avionics, or weapons to go on them. For the foreign troops that actually make it here, now they have to fight their way through the numerous large military installations in California. Our National Training Center for Armor is there, so good luck with that.
Then they get to fight their way across the deserts of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. Once in Texas, they get to deal with Ft. Hood, the largest Army base in the CONUS. This is in addition to fighting their way through some extreme partisans along the way. Once again, Godspeed, Ivan. Keep in mind that they'll be doing this with no gas, ammo, or food because they'll have no supply lines.

Face it, Nutter, it couldn't happen.

Now, if you're referring to the U.S. attempting to conquer Asia, I'll agree that it couldn't happen. Too many square miles to seize and occupy. I just don't that's a fight that either side would want to engage in.

[LA]

I wonder how many of you would agree if I were to say, British troops are trained a damn site better than American troops?

America are only outstanding in terms of quantity of equipment.

Who would agree with that?

[DougieG]

I wonder how many of you would agree if I were to say, British troops are trained a damn site better than American troops?

America are only outstanding in terms of quantity of equipment.

Who would agree with that?

There is some truth in that, from what I gather, but I'm not certain.

[DC]

I wonder how many of you would agree if I were to say, British troops are trained a damn site better than American troops?

America are only outstanding in terms of quantity of equipment.

Who would agree with that?

I agree, American troops are not well trained compared to other Western Armies, their strength comes from numbers and quality of equipment, and especially from their mechanised support. Even their special forces come up short against the SAS.

[Balthazar]

Second, aside from our military, they'd be invading a nation of 80,000,000 gun owners.

The idea of a bunch of overweight, middle-aged, low IQ, NRA gun-nuts, who live with their mothers, taking on the Spetsnaz is laughable. Plus they'd adore Russian or Chinese authoritarianism and would queue to inform on their neighbours, fillet the Bill of Rights and help round up 'anti-social elements' for 're-education.' The alleged 'last line of defence' against tyrannical government which is the US gun community showed themselves to be a bunch of pussies when George W Bush wrecked the US Constitution with the Patriot Acts. Not a shot was fired! They were too busy drinking fizzy beer and polishing their big guns (and we all know what that's about).

OK, many decent Americans keep a rusty pistol in their sock drawer to defend against burglars but how much good would that be against combat troops? Answer: sweet FA.

http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=1883


http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=1884


http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=1885


http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=1886


http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=1887

[LA]

To be fair, I would love to see the 80million or so Gun Owners take on the Russian army.
The Russian Army is quite **** really, so it should be interesting.

Can you imagine the NRA's pep talk

Howdy Boys,

Today we take on a might enemy

"Yeehaaa"

Now boys, just pretend theys a black people and keepa shooting.

[Balthazar]

Now boys, just pretend theys a black people and keepa shooting.

Well, exactly. The gun-owning US right would LOVE a Russian or Chinese government. Chinese and Russian former communists know exactly how to deal with liberals, uppity homosexuals and the ACLU. A few genuine patriots would take to the hills but the vast majority would be too authoritarian (and too fat) to do diddly squat.

Seriously, at every NRA conference some combats-clad inadequate makes the 'last line of defence against tyrannical government' speech yet they allowed GW Bush to fillet 200 years of individual freedom via the Patriot Acts: the FBI was given permission to bug and burgle its way across America. I mean, doh!

Besides, the Chinese already own America. Why on earth would they wish to take direct control? Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

[DC]

The gun-owning US right would LOVE a Russian or Chinese government.

I disagree, cause they's a' COMMUNIST-RED-NASSIES!

[Tantal]

The idea of a bunch of overweight, middle-aged, low IQ, NRA gun-nuts, who live with their mothers, taking on the Spetsnaz is laughable.

Personally, I have the skills to turn a man's head into pink goo at 300 meters on iron sights, 500 with optics; however, I'll have to admit to being less proficient at long distances with rifles than I am in close-quarters with a handgun. Just because someone is old or a little heavy doesn't mean they can't operate a trigger. Some of the most illiterate inbred rednecks you'll come across have spent their entire lives walking through the woods using guns to put food on the table. Underestimate them at your own peril.

[DougieG]

Personally, I have the skills to turn a man's head into pink goo at 300 meters on iron sights, 500 with optics; however, I'll have to admit to being less proficient at long distances with rifles than I am in close-quarters with a handgun. Just because someone is old or a little heavy doesn't mean they can't operate a trigger. Some of the most illiterate inbred rednecks you'll come across have spent their entire lives walking through the woods using guns to put food on the table. Underestimate them at your own peril.

Regardless of your firearm skills, the idea that you and your mates could take on Russian special forces armed with SMGs, rockets etc and transported in tanks, APCs and helicopters backed up by cruise missiles is laughable.

[Marxist Nutter]

Personally, I have the skills to turn a man's head into pink goo at 300 meters on iron sights, 500 with optics; however, I'll have to admit to being less proficient at long distances with rifles than I am in close-quarters with a handgun. Just because someone is old or a little heavy doesn't mean they can't operate a trigger. Some of the most illiterate inbred rednecks you'll come across have spent their entire lives walking through the woods using guns to put food on the table. Underestimate them at your own peril.

Tantal if the US army has MAJOR TROUBLE telling friend from foe what makes you think red necks would do any better? I imagine they'd all be so over excited at the prospect of war they'll all get drunk and shoot EACH OTHER (bit like US troops except they shoot brits as well)

[DC]

Regardless of your firearm skills, the idea that you and your mates could take on Russian special forces armed with SMGs, rockets etc and transported in tanks, APCs and helicopters backed up by cruise missiles is laughable.

Because the idea that a rag-tag group of lightly armed insurgents equipped with mundane, but hardy, weaponry and with an extensive knowledge of terrain and environment as well as the support of the local populace could take on the might of a heavily armed invading army is absurd.

[Balthazar]

Just because someone is old or a little heavy doesn't mean they can't operate a trigger.

Agreed, but after popping Ivan or Chang at 400m how would they propose to get away? NRA gun nuts have many qualities but is enthusiam for suicide missions one of them? Unless they can be persuaded 99 Farrah Fawcetts await them in paradise...

http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=1888

[LA]

At least the American's fight... the French just surrender...

[DTE]

Going back to the point of this thread (remember that?) I can think of one country America could kick the ass of....



...us. The UK. What use would we be in a ground offensive? Say what you like about the US rednecks (I mean that literally, say whatever you want, most of them can't read) but at least they can defend themselves. Most of them are armed to the place where their teeth should be. But what about us? We've banned handguns, most people have little to no knowledge of how to fire one anyway, what would we use to defend ourselves? Cricket bats? Frying pans? Our sarcasm?

There is an actual point to this post though, which is that most countries around the world seem to be able to put up a fight when confronted by an outside agressor (be it American or otherwise), us here in 'ol Blighty would be well and truly buggered if we were attacked. Thank God we're surrounded by water and the Welsh and Scots aren't interested.

[Balthazar]

We've banned handguns, most people have little to no knowledge of how to fire one anyway, what would we use to defend ourselves? Cricket bats? Frying pans? Our sarcasm?

There are still plenty of shotguns and hunting rifles in private hands in Britain: around 200,000 shotgun and firearm certificates are issued each year, with many owning multiple weapons. I wouldn't want to be a burglar in rural Britain. You'd never be certain the householder wasn't sitting up in bed clutching a twelve bore with a hair trigger. Besides, a handgun's a useless weapon unless someone attacks you in a lift or other confined space, and even then you need to shoot them in the head to be sure, or stick the thing in their gut and keep pulling the trigger until they fall down. But a double barrel shotgun's a formidable anti-personnel weapon. You just point it in the general direction of your assailant, shut your eyes, and pull the triggers. So don't be too sure the British can't defend themselves.

[Avatar33]

Are they? We've never seen any evidence of this. In WW2 ONE German worth roughly 3Yank soldiers - not so awesome really!
Or they are just plain useless or cowardly

Really ??? You must be surprised every morning when you get and you're not speaking German.

So if you were to have shoot out, which would you rather have ; a Mauser 98k, or an M-1?

[Avatar33]

Tantal if the US army has MAJOR TROUBLE telling friend from foe what makes you think red necks would do any better? I imagine they'd all be so over excited at the prospect of war they'll all get drunk and shoot EACH OTHER (bit like US troops except they shoot brits as well)

Nutter, have you ever been to the parts of the U.S. you're talking about?

Missouri? Texas?

[Marxist Nutter]

Really ??? You must be surprised every morning when you get and you're not speaking German.

Yes I am grateful to the Soviets for all their help on that score (they really won the war for us in many ways) - good old commies.

[Marxist Nutter]

Nutter, have you ever been to the parts of the U.S. you're talking about?

Missouri? Texas?

It seems I have rattled a few yankee cages (or is that confederate cages?)! Ha ha. No never been to Texas, not really relevant to my point about the uselessness of US troops. You know the guys your media likes to call 'heroes' even tho they cower under tables scared to fight and when they do fight they hit their allies (BRITAIN), or civilians more often than than the enemy. I merely suggested that if these so called 'trained professionals' can't hit the broad side of the right barn at ten yards I doubt un educated, over weight red necks will do any better - fair point?.

[Balthazar]

I'd still be very polite if was dating Tantal's daughter.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...05_468x427.jpg

[Tantal]

Regardless of your firearm skills, the idea that you and your mates could take on Russian special forces armed with SMGs, rockets etc and transported in tanks, APCs and helicopters backed up by cruise missiles is laughable.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with how assymetrical warfare works. An armed insurgency doesn't assemble themselves as if they're infantry and actively engage the enemy. You let them roll into town, then, when they're in 10-man patrols, you turn it into a 9-man patrol with a single shot from 400 meters, then dissappear. The next day, you knock it down to 8. Take Iraq for example. You're talking about a nation that's only the size of California and has less than 1/12th of the population of the U.S., yet they're causing all kind of problems for U.S. and British forces. Afghanistan's even smaller, at least in terms of population, yet they vanquished the Russians, albeit with some U.S. assistance to deal with their aircraft. It can be done, you just have to know how to do it.

Still no mention though of how the Russian/Chinese/N. Korean/Iranian alliance is going to deal with U.S. air and sea power.

[Tantal]

Agreed, but after popping Ivan or Chang at 400m how would they propose to get away? NRA gun nuts have many qualities but is enthusiam for suicide missions one of them? Unless they can be persuaded 99 Farrah Fawcetts await them in paradise...

You don't have to 'get away', but simply blend in. That's how insurgencies work.

[Tantal]

There are still plenty of shotguns and hunting rifles in private hands in Britain.

A shotgun is an up-close and personal weapon. They're virtually worthless past 100 yards. Hell, even Stalin allowed his citizens to keep shotguns, as it's almost impossible to challenge rifles with them. They are a niche weapon. The hunting rifles OTOH are where it's at. I personally own 19 military-grade rifles (10 of them being Kalashnikovs of varying caliber, style, and country of origin), but, if things get dirty, I'd have to grab the old Remington 700 deer rifle in 7mm Magnum. Depending on the load, it can bring down anything in N. America, including bison, moose, and grizzlies. With the right optics, it can be a 600 meter gun. People like to bitch about the deadliness of 'assault rifles', but they have nowhere near the power of an off-the-shelf hunting rifle.

[DC]

Marxist, you keep trying to point out that the rednecks in America are stupid simply because they lack what normal people would call 'intelligence,' but the ability to read or know about world politics is useless in a fire-fight. In the red states, an invading army would face extremely well armed, well trained (they've been hunting for their whole lives) and borderline fanatical guerrillas, as Iraq and Afghanistan have proved, regular armies are slaughtered by patriotic irregular ones.
Another point that has been made is that these rednecks may welcome the Authoritarian systems of China or Russia, but you're forgetting that they don't have much political intelligence, and frankly, they don't care, basically if they aren't American, they're invaders.

This is the blueprint of the perfect soldier; Well armed, reasonably well trained, well suited to the environment, patriotic, and politically stupid.

Besides, this is all irrelevant, I highly doubt an invading army would reach the American mainland, having to overcome American air and sea superiority.

FYI the Soviets were slaughtered by the Nazis, the thing that stopped Operation Barbarossa was the Winter, it was the same thing that stopped Napoleon. And it was D-Day that diverted the Nazi's attention and allowed the Russians to continue advancing into German territory.

[Balthazar]

FYI the Soviets were slaughtered by the Nazis, the thing that stopped Operation Barbarossa was the Winter, it was the same thing that stopped Napoleon. And it was D-Day that diverted the Nazi's attention and allowed the Russians to continue advancing into German territory.

Ahem, there was the small matter of the revolutionary T34 tank. While the over-engineered German monsters were getting bogged down in a few feet of snow, the T34 were zipping about.

[Marxist Nutter]

Marxist, you keep trying to point out that the rednecks in America are stupid simply because they lack what normal people would call 'intelligence,' but the ability to read or know about world politics is useless in a fire-fight. In the red states, an invading army would face extremely well armed, well trained (they've been hunting for their whole lives) and borderline fanatical guerrillas, as Iraq and Afghanistan have proved, regular armies are slaughtered by patriotic irregular ones.
Another point that has been made is that these rednecks may welcome the Authoritarian systems of China or Russia, but you're forgetting that they don't have much political intelligence, and frankly, they don't care, basically if they aren't American, they're invaders.

This is the blueprint of the perfect soldier; Well armed, reasonably well trained, well suited to the environment, patriotic, and politically stupid.

Besides, this is all irrelevant, I highly doubt an invading army would reach the American mainland, having to overcome American air and sea superiority.

FYI the Soviets were slaughtered by the Nazis, the thing that stopped Operation Barbarossa was the Winter, it was the same thing that stopped Napoleon. And it was D-Day that diverted the Nazi's attention and allowed the Russians to continue advancing into German territory.

I have never denied the effectiveness of Guerilla Warfare. My point was if highly trained (??) US soldiers can't tell friend from foe why would red necks do any better. It is not a case of even casting dispersions against their intelligence.

hold on This is already a repeat of what I have already posted!

[Avatar33]

It seems I have rattled a few yankee cages (or is that confederate cages?)! Ha ha. No never been to Texas, not really relevant to my point about the uselessness of US troops. You know the guys your media likes to call 'heroes' even tho they cower under tables scared to fight and when they do fight they hit their allies (BRITAIN), or civilians more often than than the enemy. I merely suggested that if these so called 'trained professionals' can't hit the broad side of the right barn at ten yards I doubt un educated, over weight red necks will do any better - fair point?.

Then you don't know what ( whom) you're talking about Nutter; a sign of base ignorence. Nutter you are just parroting back the sterotypes you've heard from different media sources. Until you come here and discover for yourself what folks are really like here, then you are just casting yourself in the role of fool.

Come on over, and find out that not everyone here is unable to read, runs around bare foot, drink moonshine, fly confederate flags, and married to their cousin.

And BTW, Missouri was a Union state during the Civil War ( but we did have lots and lots of guerilla fighters here).

If you show up in the Show Me state I can show the marksmanship of the people around here.

Up for the challenge?

[Marxist Nutter]

Then you don't know what ( whom) you're talking about Nutter; a sign of base ignorence. Nutter you are just parroting back the sterotypes you've heard from different media sources. Until you come here and discover for yourself what folks are really like here, then you are just casting yourself in the role of fool.

Come on over, and find out that not everyone here is unable to read, runs around bare foot, drink moonshine, fly confederate flags, and married to their cousin.

And BTW, Missouri was a Union state during the Civil War ( but we did have lots and lots of guerilla fighters here).

If you show up in the Show Me state I can show the marksmanship of the people around here.

Up for the challenge?

I was well aware Missouri fought for the Union (although Texas did not), thank you very much.

I take your point about making generalisations and I largely agree with you.I certainly should not base my judgments on stereotypes, and much of my posts were somewhat tongue in cheek with regard to red necks anyway.

However the substantive point was (once AGAIN) if trained professionals (?) cannot hit the right target then why should I think citizens are any more capable? Please tell me as you seem to know


Oh and Welcome to the Forum by the way

[DC]

I hardly think any defense of the US would be undermined by huge amounts of casualties caused by Friendly fire, even if Guerrillas were a major part of that war. Why? Because they're fighting a regular army, with uniforms, and in the case of China, they'd be Asian. The friendly fire incidents resulting from air or artillery strikes would also be minimal, after all, this hypothetical guerrilla force isn't equipped with them are they?

[Marxist Nutter]

I hardly think any defense of the US would be undermined by huge amounts of casualties caused by Friendly fire, even if Guerrillas were a major part of that war. Why? Because they're fighting a regular army, with uniforms, and in the case of China, they'd be Asian. The friendly fire incidents resulting from air or artillery strikes would also be minimal, after all, this hypothetical guerrilla force isn't equipped with them are they?

very true, Good point!

[flash]

It seems to me the US military is pretty damn pathetic. Not only did they get their asses kicked by a bunch of Asain Rice farmers in the 60s, they also only seem (recently) to bring themselves to attack nations with no defensive capabilities (like Iraq) and yet they still have not secured that nation 100% either!! Like a shy school girl the USA runs scared of any conflict with a nation that can defend itself. It seems to not dare anger N.Korea and one need only cast their minds back to the 20th century where the USA spent most of its time cowering in the fear it might actually have to fight an enemy of equal strength.

What this tells me is the US miltary can only bully people. It seems only interested in attacking countries with no army to defend themselves and even then ( as with Vietnam) they still get their asses kicked! I mean lets face it this is a nation so scared to get it's hands dirty and actually fight., it opted to nuke Japanese civilians rather than fight their army which showed superior skill and determination. Again, the 1991 Iraq conflict where US (and British) forces dare not leave the safety of their fighter/bombers as they declared a victory over a nation that had very little airforce!

Now I wonder what would happen if an alliance between Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea attacked the USA. Then we will see what these American 'heroes' are really made of (cowardice and bullcrap must likely). I reckon they might just about have enough time to soil themselves before learning to speak Russian!

First my first post on this site I would like to correct a misconception you made in your post.

The United States was not “beaten by a bunch of Asian rice farmers in the 1960s”. You need to bone up on your history a little bit. The United States never suffered a significant military loss in Vietnam. By the time Vietnam fell all American combat troops had been long withdrawn from the country. The decision to not fund the government of South Vietnam by a weak Left leaning Democrat Congress led to the downfall of South Vietnam, not a military victory against the US. There is a big difference.

As far as the US military it is the premier fighting force in the world today. That doesn’t mean it can win any war or defeat any enemy. However, it is a well trained, well equipped, well led and well motivated fighting force.

It is large enough to have some of the best troops in the world and also some mediocre troops, depending on the unit.

I am a 1960s era US Army veteran. I served both in Germany and in Vietnam. In Germany I was stationed on the Fulda Gap and my unit faced the Third Soviet Shock Army. We were not afraid to stand toe to toe with the Soviets at the high of their military strength then and I don’t we would afraid to take on the much weaker Russian Army nowadays if needed.

The US spends ten times as much on its military as the next country. We are well able to handle any threat or defeat any enemy we deem necessary. Maybe Obama will change that but today we are still very strong.

[Avatar33]

Thanks for the welcome Nutter.

1.) The Army trains you shoot their way, civilians learn to shot in way that's right and comfortable for them.

2.) Those guys were most likely bad shooters to begin with

One the favorite things I like to do is find a small sappling less then an half-inch wide, back off about 30 meters, or so then cut it down with my bolt action .22 rifle. Seven shots, seven hits. Its fun to see this tiny tree slowly fall over just after the last shot hits. I also like to use playing cards ( the 7's) at about the same distance; hitting the characters only.

I've know guys who've hit deer on the run in the eye, shot squirrels in the head at over a hundered meters.

But you have to remember, nobody made me, or thoses guys mad ...yet.

[Midas]

First my first post on this site I would like to correct a misconception you made in your post.

[ ... ]

The US spends ten times as much on its military as the next country. We are well able to handle any threat or defeat any enemy we deem necessary. Maybe Obama will change that but today we are still very strong.

Firstly can I say welcome to the forum and make a couple of quick points about posting in the forum. If you haven't read the rules yet, please do; you can find them here. Knowing what’s appropriate and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle! You might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. Also please respect other people’s views; they mightn’t be the same as yours but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just different.

If you need help with anything at all, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; details can be found here.

Secondly, can I correct you in respect of your comment "The US spends ten times as much on its military as the next country". According to the latest available figures from NationMaster the USA is actually 28th in the list of military expenditure in terms of its GDP.

[flash]

Secondly, can I correct you in respect of your comment "The US spends ten times as much on its military as the next country". According to the latest available figures from NationMaster the USA is actually 28th in the list of military expenditure in terms of its GDP.

You are right in terms of per captia but that is not a measurement of military strength. That is like saying I have a better car than you because I spend more of my income on transportation than you do. It doesn't take into consideration what our incomes are nor the actually price of the car. I could have 20 year old VW and you could have a brand new Jaguar.

Here are the worldwide rankings in terms of absolute money spent on military.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

There is about $1100 spent worldwide each year on defense and the US spends over half of it.

The US is in the range of about $600 billion and both China and Russia each run about 1/10th of that.

I am sure that Obama will make sure that the US loses it's strength but for the time being the US is very well able to take care of any threat and to do whatever level of interventionism it feels necessary.

World Wide Military Expenditures

World
$1100 billion

2004 est. [see Note 4]
Rest-of-World [all but USA]
$500 billion

United States
$623 billion

China
$65.0 billion

Russia
$50.0 billion

France
$45.0 billion

United Kingdom
$42.8 billion

Japan
$41.75 billion

Germany
$35.1 billion

Italy
$28.2 billion

South Korea
$21.1 billion

[flash]

and when they do fight they hit their allies (BRITAIN), or civilians more often than than the enemy. I merely suggested that if these so called 'trained professionals' can't hit the broad side of the right barn at ten yards I doubt un educated, over weight red necks will do any better - fair point?.

Could you provide some statistics on this? Hitting allied troops “more often than the enemy” is a very significant number and I am sure you can back that up with some real data, can’t you?

During the early months of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan there were some friendly fire tragedies and that is too bad. My understanding is that the US and its allies have worked very hard to improve the communication between the various command structures and that the friendly fire events have been greatly diminished.

As far as American gun owners not all of us are overweight and unable to hit the broad side of a barn. I belong to a shooting club. There are about a thousand members. Many of them are ex military and some are law enforcement. Most are able to shoot very well and most have a sizable firearms collection. There are many professional people including doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators.

Last week I was out at the range participating in a 1000 yd match. We were shooting at 4 inch clay targets. The winner hit 13 out of 15. I don’t know if you have ever even shot a firearm or tried to hit a target at 1,000 yds but that is darn good shooting.

You really need to examine your stereotype view of Americans.

[Balthazar]

There are many professional people including doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators.

Don't forget the Pink Pistols!

There are now over 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.

Source

http://www.pinkpistols.org/newspapers/020517-guns.jpg

[flash]

Say what you like about the US rednecks (I mean that literally, say whatever you want, most of them can't read)

I live in a fairly rural Southern area. Most consider ourselves to be rednecks. Many of us are college educated and a few of us actually have advanced degrees in Engineering and other technical fields.

It was funny but a few years ago I worked at the Hanford facility in Eastern Washington. Hanford is a legacy Manhattan Project facility. We were managing nuclear material and we had partnered with BNFL of the UK.

The BNFL Engineers move there with their families. After a couple of years the kids were almost completely Americanized. The men all bought pickup trucks and spent some time shooting at the range and fishing. After about three years except for their accents you couldn’t tell them from the "rednecks" that lived in the area. It was comfortable lifestyle.

One of the things I remember the Brits appreciating was the access to the land. In the US there are tremendous areas open to public for fishing, hunting, camping, hiking etc and the Brits took advantage of it. They said that back in dear old England everything is owned by some Lord or something and it was hard to get access to land.

[Midas]

You are right in terms of per captia but that is not a measurement of military strength. That is like saying I have a better car than you because I spend more of my income on transportation than you do. It doesn't take into consideration what our incomes are nor the actually price of the car. I could have 20 year old VW and you could have a brand new Jaguar.

Here are the worldwide rankings in terms of absolute money spent on military.

[ ... ]

OK, point taken and understood. I misinterpreted exactly what it was you were saying when I gave the GDP statistic.

But one could very easily argue the point that with their only land borders being to Canada and Mexico, otherwise thousands of sea and air miles between the USA and their nearest potential enemy, why on earth would the USA want to spend so much money on its military if it wasn't to further its expansion by force into the rest of the world. But that's a totally different subject and not for this particular thread.

But on track, I suspect that in terms of conventional high-tech warfare the USA could indeed hammer most other nations. We've only to see what type of offensive occurred against Iraq and the huge difficulties that there would be to defend against such an attack, even for the most technologically equipped country. Having said that, I also suspect that if confronted by a far less conventional, or guerrilla type situation, there could be significant problems with the rigidity of a highly trained military mindset in coping with that. If high tech was rendered almost useless under those conditions, it could be a very different matter. The failures, or at least the getting bogged down in stalemates, in Vietnam and later in Afghanistan are good indicators of what could happen elsewhere.