What drives some to make the assumption that the U.S. is NOT as Militarily Advanced as it truly is?

I have noticed that there are a number of people on this Board who make the assumption that the United States is in some way Militarily Inferior to other countries such as China or Russia. I have also noticed by a great number of posts that some seem to think that if in the unlikely event a WAR broke out between the U.S. and IRAN that the U.S. Military would be hard pressed to defeat Iran.

I am a "CIVILIAN" in the manner that the quotes denote and work with members of the U.S. Military which allows me a special vantage point to look at this issue. I KNOW...not Guess or Think or Postulate...but KNOW...that the U.S. Military is not something any country or even a GROUP of country's would want to wage WAR against.

China and Russia may talk a lot and Iran's Civilian Mouth Piece that spouts nonsense such as statements like...We are perfectly capable of HANDLING any U.S. Military Attack upon Iran and can sink U.S. Naval ships at will.

It is statements like these which has Iran's own Military Leadership on the verge of Mutiny. Iran's REAL Military Leadership is well aware of U.S. Military capabilities as aware that what the U.S. Military shows the World as far as capabilities is not the true extent of U.S. Military Covert Capabilities. China and especially Russia are much more aware of what possible Ultra-Advanced Weaponry the U.S. Military could have and they not only Fear it but they Respect it. This is at odds with how Iran's Civilian Military Mouth Piece has and still is stating.

For those of you here on this board...I tell you this. Whatever you can think of as a possible U.S. Military High Tech Weapon...Multiply your thoughts times a THOUSAND! We have capabilities and Weaponry that scare even those who have designed it and if any Nation were to actually attempt a Sneak Attack...the U.S. Military would use some of this weaponry. These systems are WORLD CHANGING and even knowledge of their EXISTENCE would put Political Strains on our relations with other countries and even our own allies.

Pandora's Box was opened a Long Time Ago! We are able to keep the Box Lid shut but we can also open that Box anytime we wish...but to do so would have cause and effects that would create a completely different view by others upon the United States and I am sure many would use the word EMPIRE to describe the LAST, BEST HOPE FOR MANKIND. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


So it beggers the question. Why won't the US get involved in Syria. The answer would be that they FEAR Russian and Chinese involvement. Any country that has a military advantage over ever other country knows that it has nothing to fear. The US has not got that advantage. It does not know for certain what secret projects other countries have.

Its silly to think that we have ANY idea how advanced our military is. Our finest weaponry has not been made public, you can guarantee that.

The fear of russian and chinese involvement comes from an economic standpoint. Thats not to say that we would have an easy time in a war with them, but the economic impact is far more of a threat.

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

So it beggers the question. Why won't the US get involved in Syria. The answer would be that they FEAR Russian and Chinese involvement. Any country that has a military advantage over ever other country knows that it has nothing to fear. The US has not got that advantage. It does not know for certain what secret projects other countries have.

The Syrian Issue is strictly a Political one and has nothing to do with our capabilities. The U.S. does not FEAR any other country or even group of countries. What our POLITICIANS FEAR is whether they can get elected or re-elected.
Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

(innocent smile) (whistles at ceiling) .... Now who could you possibly mean among those who would have suggested such ideas? I dunno... I think your imagining things.. No one like that around here.

You know, I've talked privately about this with some at ATS and you really open the door to saying it very much outright.

There are two distinctly different and..yet to ever overlap..methods of fighting war.

#1. There is the approach of fighting for our national future and our possible survival. It's what we can all call Total War. No holds are barred and no methods are taboo but perhaps the most extreme (even the powers in World War II never used Chem/Bio on a WIDE or effective scale). The only focus in this way of fighting is the total destruction of the enemy's ability to hurt us now or in the future. Politics are secondary because Politicians know they won't survive losing the war.

^^^ World War II was the last time we've seen this method of war actually fought...Although, I know you'll agree, we've been spending and building a military capable of fighting that way ever since. We simply haven't used them that way. This method of fighting requires a respect....even fear....of the enemy being fought. It means, we fight with the knowledge we COULD lose.

#2. There is the approach of limited, escalating and politically re-active war. This, by it's very nature and definition, comes from a position and confidence of being superior to the enemy being fought and ultimate survival is not even a question.....for us anyway. This is how, in my opinion based on educating myself on the topics, we've fought Vietnam, the action in Beirut, Somalia (once it turned to something more than pure aid), Kosovo and the 2001/2003 Wars.

^^^ I've left a couple out. Daddy Bush fought Gulf I with respect and caution...not fear..but caution by numbers and OVERWHELMING force. It made it a "check those stopwatches" precisely 100 hour war. To the Minute. (snap). Korea was a fight for the very lives of every man in the theater .....only because it became a rather arrogant RUSH to the Yalu river while starting to babble ideas of finding MacArthur street maps for Beijing. China doesn't find humor in crap like that...and we damn near lost every man there.


So... If we're talking TOTAL WAR... You're 100% and absolutely right. Iran wouldn't stand a serious challenge and never will. Not if the U.S. fought as if our very survival depended on it. China and Russia would need to fight us together, to be totally honest...and probably with other smaller nations as well....and it would still be a fight for survival with no clear winner from the outset, in my opinion. I agree...the US is SO TOTALLY TOTALLY over built and over tech to what we can possibly be seeing (the numbers...don't make sense on a level that is crazytown)..total war would mean world war is what it would take to beat us. REALLY defeat the U.S.

Just show me a President now or recently with the pair to wage total war. I don't see one now. We've gotten our butts kicked like nations a 1/4 our true ability because our leaders don't fight like winning matters.Until they can and do......Why should anyone think Iran would be any different? We're off to get stomped again. Then pay the enemy for the damages.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

What could China do if the U.S. were to stop making payments on loans? NOTHING! Again this is also a Political Issue and has nothing to do with Military Realities. Split Infinity

This is not a troll answer but what I think:

9/11

If the USA had as powerful and advanced a military as people believed then 19 minimally funded hijackers wouldn't have pulled off what they did.

Oddly enough though, if proven that it was an inside job, then I would say absolutely.

reply to post by SplitInfinity
The best weapon is the one no body knows who ordered its attack and at the same time seems to look like a freak of nature. In fact it is more of a threat than a weapon that needs to be used. A sample can be delivered to a very small location as a warning, giving the date and time. We may very well have gone through a few of these and not realized that they were just warnings. It all boils down to the fact if you are warned about what is going to happen, you more or less know the power of those who hold that weapons. You know what you are dealing with.Or you think you do. Fear is the worst weapon.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

2000...if for some reason you think I was even thinking of you...you are incorrect. I am not singling out any individual. But I have read many times from some...Iran is NOT Iraq. As well as...China has Millions of Soldiers.

Yes Iran is not Iraq but then again we did not fight the Iraq war without having to be constrained by Political issues. A unlikely war with Iran would have the U.S. Military taking a complete and different approach as IRAN has a population that desires what the U.S. itself desires...a Democratic Free Iran.

As for all out WAR...the U.S. no longer needs to rely upon Nuclear Weapons to fight such a war. Split Infinity

reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog

9/11 happened because of the way the Airline Companies had trained their Staff to handle a Hijacking. Something like what happened in those aircraft will never happen again. Split Infinity

reply to post by ancientthunder

I agree. That is why a HUGE amount of funding has gone into Detection and Intell. Split Infinity

I guess its because this site is infested by people who are zealots on both sides of the issue.

There are the america haters on one side spewing nonsense about Iranian killer death drones

On the other side are those who's ego is somehow intertwined in the idea of american military might to the point they cannot comprehend the idea that in any area another power might have at least parity.

Both are unreasonable positions which are symptoms of some other emotional issue i think.

As a counter question why do some americans feel the need to believe not just that they are adequately defended but that they have the capability to overwhelmingly dominate the world. It seems curious given that the USA has no credible invasion risk (and never really has had). Well, not since we brits set fire to Washington anyway.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

If we go into Iran...a nation of 70 million and many distinct and different cultures...thinking they'll all welcome us or appreciate our coming into their nation..I think we're losing before we've even begun. It's nearly as tribal outside the north as Afghanistan is in some ways, but with the tech to have a fledgling space program and very mature domestic arms production industry.

Iran is also just shy of the land mass to match our Western U.S. States. It's a big big place and so far, we've had a real issue with controlling even comparatively small areas. Nothing about our track record speaks well to Iran turning out well unless we DO go in to absolutely win by total war. Then we will....but nothing they've done even remotely justifies THAT form of destruction...without ever talking special weapons.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What could China do if the U.S. were to stop making payments on loans? NOTHING! Again this is also a Political Issue and has nothing to do with Military Realities. Split Infinity

You fail to take into account everything that we import from china and their allies. Not to mention the world bank impact of such a move.

Defaulting would be disastrous to the u.s.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


What about the failure of NORAD to respond? Having every single one of your fighter planes participating in war games in one concentrated area of the country leaving it vulnerable sounds like poor organization.

You can have the greatest advances in technology but if the humans behind them are incompetent it makes them moot.

What drives some to make the assumption that every other country is not as advanced as the US?

Infinite monkey theorem. Just a matter of time.

Op you bring up a great point.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dragged on so long because they are heavily scrutinized by the media from many countries and as a result of political correctness, and trying to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible, our troops are being severely hindered in their ability to conduct offensive operations.

I have been in the military for 12 years now. I can vouch for your assertion that if the gloves ever came off, any conflict would end quickly and decisively.

With that being said, I advocate Ron Paul's stance on military spending. Not that it will ever happen, but if it meant I found myself out.of a job. Well, So be it.

Its hard to be patriotic if you admit your country kind of holds the world hostage using tactics most would associate with a terrorist organization.

Sometimes its easier to play victim than admit you support such actions.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


An excellent point.

Of course, there is also another variable to consider. The military may (and quite likely does) have a vast ability beyond the knowledge of most. The question may be more about the willpower of those who hold the reigns to use it.

I do not mean this to derail the thread, but to offer an example. For example, I think we had / have the ability to have gotten into (and more importantly) out of the whole Afghanistan engagement *far* more quickly and successfully than we have done so. I do not think it is a question of ability of the military, but more a question of willpower on the part of the politicians.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

2000...The current position of the U.S. is wait and see.

We are also having secret Military to Military talks just as we did in Iraq in the event the Iranian Old Religious Guard orders the Iranian Navy to do something stupid like Close the Strait of Hormuz. In this event that the Iranian Military is given a Suicidal Order...they could stand down with promises by the U.S. Military that it will not attack the Iranian Navy or other Military Forces as long as they do not follow that order.

Split Infinity