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

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

US defence spending, it terms of dollars spent, means absolutely squat.

It means everything.

I did some rough figuring here...and if we replaced all 11 Aircraft carriers with brand new Ford Class Carriers (The latest out) plus a billion each just to round it out to an even 10 on cost per copy, Then we replace all 61 Destroyers with DDG-1000 type Destroyers....also the latest and greatest. Then we replace the 26 frigates and 71 submarines...ALL..with the latest currently available. ...

.....if we replace ALL of that, which is basically the entire in-service U.S. Navy......it comes to just a bit less than 2011's U.S. Defense budget spending, for that ONE year.

War spending was around a trillion for both wars combined in 2011...for the duration of them. So that means around 100 billion a year has been going out that direction. This spending was quite high well before 2001, too.

I'd only disagree with the OP in the likelihood the very high tech is even used and point to things like the Battle of Fallujah for examples of what needs some explaining for why the high tech wasn't used to prevent it entirely. On the actual money flowing........with nothing truly THERE to show for it? Well.... Even every other major nation combined doesn't come close.

If it were 2012...I'd wonder about those Arks in the movie of the same date. Oh... Err.. Wait.. (hops off real fast)

edit on 2-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

You don't have a clue about economics do you?

In terms of real world purchasing power, China is already far outspending the US, and doing so at much more sustainable rate (2% of GDP vs 4,7% of GDP).

reply to post by peck420


You must be joking. The US spends 5 to 6 times what China spends. Currently and historically the US far outspends China in terms of percentage of GDP and US dollars.

www.bloomberg.com...

The US accounts for 45.7 percent of total defense spending by the world's 171 governments and territories.

defense.aol.com...

That sounds about right.
In other words, the US defense budget is not just dominant, it is operating at a level completely independent of perceived threats. Military industrial complex influencing government for contracts? Taxpayer funds for contracts for companies, Dick Cheney and Haliburton?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

You just don't get it. You're modern tech, isn't necessarily what will win the war. No country, EVER has won a war on multiple fronts with modern nations. The issue isn't the USA being advanced, you have some purdy toys. How ever so does China, as well as Russia. You also fail to understand no body shows their cards early. How do you know the US is the only one with in your own words "scary " technology? You seem to think you're the only nation with a strong army, and you know your media has done a great job of portraying you as the top dog. How ever your modern technology doesn't save your soldiers from IED's, or cold war era RPG's fighting untrained farmers and countrymen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason so many of us are against the US starting a conflict with Iran, with the China and Russia as allies is sheer numbers. There are more Chinese, Russian, and Iranian soldiers than American civilians. China and Russia have trained and designed technology to specifically combat the USA.

Of course your soldiers believe they are the best. That's the point of a soldier, you are the best because your are told so. It doesn't necessarily make it true.

Here are American casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan..
antiwar.com...

100,000 wounded servicemen in combat. since war broke out.
American death's since war in Iraq Since war began (3/19/03) 4488
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 4347
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3627
257 since obama
68 since operation red dawn

1969 dead US servicemen in Afghanistan.

Now, I'd like to keep you informed for the most part you're fighting as your media would portray, religious extremist terrorist. Using captured and improvised weapons...

Do I need to show you what a modern army looks like? Do you not watch the news warning about how ugly the Iran war will be, and that the reason they want to do it so bad is that Iran has built accurate Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles capable of delivering a nuke if they obtain it? Iran has a modern Airforce, Iraq didn't... Afghanistan has no Airforce... Iran has a modern Navy, Iraq didn't... Afghanistan does not have one. Iran has a modern Army. Iraq's surrendered. Afghanistan's was fighting on your side.... oh and it wasn't modern... Iran has drones, as well as has hacked and brought yours down.

As well, Iran has tanks, Artillery, Helicopters, just as many missiles, bombs, bullets, mortars, rockets, guns.
Russia has modern systems that could very well compete with the American technology. Was it not long ago on ATS we saw a story about a Russian Sub hanging out in your gulf UNDETECTED!!! Funny. Nuclear Missile Class sub just chilling off your coast, in your waters....

China's Army is freaking Huge.. Like disgustingly huge. They have a whole hell of a lot of tech that you have. Russia, again similar technology.

You may have technology, but it's not unique. You may have patriotism, but it doesn't make you invincible. You have nukes, so do Russia and China. Aside from a nuke, what is your country going to do when it's overwhelmed in a saturation attack? It's never faced such a feat since I think WW2??? ha ha ha

It's we think the US lacks Technology, or isn't a strong Army, it's just I haven't seen the US prove themselves in a very long time. You've been fighting farmers with AK's, RPG's, and Improvised bombs.

I think The US vs Iran, Russia and China is pretty obvious what will happen. The numbers alone do not stack in American favor. Your countries media had a hay day when china announced it's Carrier destroyer cruise missiles. I'm excited to see em in action if you decide to play this game, and with the movements of the UK PM, I think we will all get to see very soon.

You all have a voice. This war is unnecessary, the very same nation you all keep foaming at the mouth to try your arms at offered you disaster relief. What the heck is wrong America? You've turned into a school yard bully.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
There is no question the US has the most powerful and capable military in the world, that is obvious to anyone who has studied military hardware.
The Russian military are still quite powerful and to a lesser extent China. It is highly improbable that hostilities between these three nuclear powers would ever break out because of MAD or mutually assured destruction. As for Iran they are not very strong at all.

I don't believe anything about these so-called superweapons you keep mentioning.
We already have the ultimate weapons of armageddon, nuclear weapons. The destructive power of one US Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarine with the Trident weapons system is almost beyond imagining. Your so-called secret super weapons still cannot compare with this ultimate destructive force so they make no difference even if they do exist.
We still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a few times over, I think people forget that sometimes.

It is worth pointing out that from the U.S. perspective currently only Russia and the U.S. have both the warheads and intercontinental delivery systems to maintain a credible MAD deterrent.

China's nuclear arsenal is primarily a regional deterrent as they don't have the necessary delivery systems in the numbers required to guarantee a massive retaliatory capability after absorbing a first strike (yet )

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by peck420

 

You must be joking. The US spends 5 to 6 times what China spends. Currently and historically the US far outspends China in terms of percentage of GDP and US dollars.

www.bloomberg.com...

Oh.... And with all that money, the Canadian's are still the best snipers.... HA HA!!!!

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

No country, EVER has won a war on multiple fronts with modern nations.

You might want to double check your world history 101 on that one, the last total war that was fought between modern nations found the U.S. fighting on two massive fronts and winning decisively.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


China has nuclear capable cruise missiles.....
project2049.net...

I like to keep up to date on the nations capable of putting the us into a smouldering stone age.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

No country, EVER has won a war on multiple fronts with modern nations.

You might want to double check your world history 101 on that one, the last total war that was fought between modern nations found the U.S. fighting on two massive fronts and winning decisively.

EERRRRRRRRRRRRRR No. The US used a nuke on Japan... Britain, Canada, France, Poland, Russia, and pretty much the rest of Europe with the support of the us beat Germany. Half of which was pretty much won by Russia.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


It may not result in complete MAD but it would be MAD enough. One nuclear warhead can destroy a city. The US, UK, France, Russia and China all have nuclear ballistic missile submarines.
No leader would be fool enough to risk even a few nuclear warheads hitting their cities. Your point reminds me of Dr Stranglove. We'll only lose 20 or 30 million.

reply to post by JimTSpock


Ahhhh, finally another reasonable human being. It's good to know, someone doesn't think this war is a good idea.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


It's not that the US military isn't as advanced as it is, it's just Russia, China and Iran are a lot more advanced than you think they are.


Sure, the US spends more money every year than Russia and China... But Russia makes their cash go further and China just mass reproduces US inventions.

The US spends billions every year researching new technology and when it comes on the market the Chinese just go 'Yeah, we will take 10... Ok, now we will make a hundred of them for half the price".
During the 'Space race' the US spent nearly $1b developing a pen that will work in space and is practically indestructible because normal ink pens wouldn't work in zero-gs... Russia just decided to use a pencil.

You can see where my skepticism is coming from, can't you?

So, the US might have all the weaponry you think they do (FEL, Tesla cannon, HAARP, Earthquake bombs [the 16 tonne superbomb is apparently strong enough to shift a tectonic plate if used in great numbers], plasma weaponry etc) but Russia and China have plans to counter those weapons. Most countries do.

It's just naive of you to think that money expenditure equates to great military power.

It's human ingenuity that equates power. You could have the most advanced, powerful laser weapon that can eradicate nuclear weaponry without leaving radiation behind but someone will come along and simply cut the power supply.

So, my advice to you; stop having such a hissy fit. If you're truly a civvie then you have NO CLUE what the US (or any other military) is capable of. All you can go on is second hand information which may or may not be fabricated or put out there to scare US enemies into not attacking them for fear of nation destroying weapons.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I don't know who # and made you king. I agree with you that the US military is the most advanced in the world, but because you are a "civilian" you know the real truth, tbh, you're completely full of it, and even if you did, you have no idea about the aspects of other military countries, some of which are no slouches either.

Military weapons and strength aren't the only things that matter if a war breaks out. The military is restricted by having to protect civilian populations and collateral damage, thereby not allowing full force to be employed. Not only this, but many strategic and geographical points restrict military movement and if a full blown war ever breaks out between the US and other superpowers there will be significant damage done by both sides, plenty of dead US servicemen and servicewomen. There's a reason we only invade countries with marginal weaponry and the overall inability to fight back militarily, but the world is changing and so are the tactics, the US military has difficulty fight insurgent type attacks because you have no idea who the enemy is. The US will not be flattening entire countries, therefore their extra weapons are extremely limited.

Get off your high horse.

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

No country, EVER has won a war on multiple fronts with modern nations.

You might want to double check your world history 101 on that one, the last total war that was fought between modern nations found the U.S. fighting on two massive fronts and winning decisively.

EERRRRRRRRRRRRRR No. The US used a nuke on Japan... Britain, Canada, France, Poland, Russia, and pretty much the rest of Europe with the support of the us beat Germany. Half of which was pretty much won by Russia.

Hit the books and check back with me on that in a few years.

I'm not questioning the Soviet Union's 25 million dead at the hands of the Wehrmacht nor the free people of Europe's gallant and bloody efforts in defeating National Socialism however to minimize the American contribution in lives and materials is silly and insulting.

You do know that France capitulated and the majority of the French military cooperated with their German occupiers and that only a handful of free poles escaped to the west to continue the fight? (everybody seems to forget that the U.S.S.R. invaded Eastern Poland alongside Germany in 1939)

This is Europe 1941/42 before direct U.S. military involvement and speaks for itself...



In the Pacific theater it was a different story with the bulk of the effort being carried by the U.S.

By the August, 1945 there was nothing left of Imperial Japan, 4 cities had been purposely left intact to demonstrate the weapon. Everything else was destroyed.

The conventional firebombing of Tokyo on March 9–10 March 1945 was the most destructive air raid in history, killing more and destroying more infrastructure than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

The atomic bombings ended the war in the Pacific with an exclamation point but it was 4 years of gruesome fighting from Guadalcanal in the Solomons to Okinawa that won the war for the allies

Word of the week... historical revisionism.

The problem with Empire building is that empires leave too many enemies in their wake. Eventually the empire is surrounded from within. Look at the ash heap of history. No different today. You can't beat everybody.

Won't stop some from trying though.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

(everybody seems to forget that the U.S.S.R. invaded Eastern Poland alongside Germany in 1939)

I haven't. Watch what is happening in Syria.

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by peck420

 

You must be joking. The US spends 5 to 6 times what China spends. Currently and historically the US far outspends China in terms of percentage of GDP and US dollars.

www.bloomberg.com...

Oh.... And with all that money, the Canadian's are still the best snipers.... HA HA!!!!

That record has now been beaten by a British Soldier :-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by SplitInfinity

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...

Afghanistan.

Done in one.

reply to post by Hijinx


This

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
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.

Because we have not been able to decisively win a major armed conflict in the last 67 consecutive years. Our overwhelming technological advantage is actually our greatest WEAKNESS because it allows us to back our enemies into corners from which there is NO ESCAPE. It's a surefire way to lose EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why? Because when you are guaranteed defeat before you start...you really don't have anything to lose.

-The Spartans at Thermopylae knew they weren't coming home.
-The Japanese Kamikaze pilots were bolted into the cockpit before they launched.
-Sun-Tzu would deliberately send armies on "suicide missions" when outnumbered in order to win because he knew they would fight harder if they had no other option.
-Boudica lost to the Romans when she trapped them in a box canyon.
-The penalty for desertion in the Roman army was to kill 1 out 10 men in the unit whether they ran off or not. The practice was called "decimation".

See a pattern here? The REASON we have terrorist attacks is because we have made it IMPOSSIBLE to attack us with an army. The more we dictate terms and give the Iranians a "choice" between two alternatives they don't want...the more we can be sure to see lots and lots of suicide bombers. Both domestically and abroad.

Furthermore, the lesson of history is that the LEAST important thing in determining victory in a war is the size of your military or it's technological advantage...even though these are the things that normally determine victory in a BATTLE.

Just like the US won every battle in Vietnam...but we lost the war. Hannibal could win battles...but couldn't win the war. Russia won all the battles in Afghanistan just like we did...but we both lost the wars.

See how that works?

It's a myth that the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam War. Or worse it was propaganda bestowed by the US Government on it's people. Here is a list of just some of the battles the US lost:-

www.g2mil.com...

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

It may not result in complete MAD but it would be MAD enough. One nuclear warhead can destroy a city. The US, UK, France, Russia and China all have nuclear ballistic missile submarines.
No leader would be fool enough to risk even a few nuclear warheads hitting their cities. Your point reminds me of Dr Stranglove. We'll only lose 20 or 30 million.

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks."

Remember that as of now, the PLN's boomers have spent the bulk of their careers in the shipyard and their functionality and ability to survive a shooting war are questionable at best.

To be effective, the MAD doctrine dictates that each of the players have a large and diverse enough arsenal to guarantee absorbing a first strike and still have a feasible retaliatory capability which as of now, China does not (unless you subscribe to the unfounded conspiracy theory that the Second Artillery Corps has secretly established thousands of warheads mounted on hundreds of DF-31's hidden in secret tunnel systems)

Are they dangerous? Absolutely.

Would they have the ability to sortie without being tracked by U.S. ASW assets and launch their weapons before being popped like a zit from a Mk.48?

I would rather not find out but probably not. As you say, in the modern world one nuke is enough.

Before anyone retorts with the story of the PLN type 039 surfacing in the middle of the CV-63 battlegroup, I would point out that it is a sensationalised media report that makes no mention of the 688i SSK that had been tracking the PLN Song SSK for 45 minutes, besides the fact that the task force was making no active ASW measures.

Had it been on a wartime footing, in all likelihood the PLN boat wouldn't have gotten within 300 miles of the Kittyhawk's battlegroup.

Regardless, there is no reason to expect any type of direct conflict between the worlds major players in the near future.