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

Zaphod58
reply to post by Fapomet

 

Where did I say they were simulators owned by Al-Qaeda? I said that the pilots involved in the operation had time in the simulator, not that they were owned by their group.

The US takes civilian casualties seriously, or they wouldn't use things like laser guided bombs, or GPS guided bombs. They'd just go back to WWII and level everything in sight to get a power station. Just send the B-52s over and carpet bomb the hell out of the city to get a small target somewhere inside it. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

If the US wanted to, they could have wiped out every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan, and Iraq and ended the problems in both countries. Yes a lot of people died, but nowhere NEAR what would have died in the past. I suggest you look up some of the WWII bombings, such as Dresden and Tokyo and the fire bombings, and see what COULD have happened today.

edit on 10/4/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Wtf are you even talking about haha...We can't just wipe out a country with bombs without reprecussions from other countries. Yeah we can take one or two countries on even, but the whole world? I think not.
America does not employ tactical methods because it cares about civilian lives, I will guarantee you that right now. America employs tactical methods, because of the backlash from the rest of the world. Our enemies allies are the only thing keeping that in check, rest assured.

reply to post by Fapomet


And if they seriously wanted to they could have "accidentally" leveled a few cities and some villages without repercussion. They could easily have made it look like insurgents attacked the villages and killed everyone in them if they really wanted to. It could have been done if they didn't give a damn about civilian casualties. Look at how many US soldiers died because commanders refused to give them air or artillery support because a village was too close.

MrSpad

teachtaire
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Four foot tall Vietnamese men in pajamas agree with you.

Exactly. The Viet Cong and troops from North Vietnam learned early on that a stand up battle with US forces always lead to a crushing defeat. That is why the stepped back from the early attempt to win the war on the battle field to a low level insurgency that would last a long time with the intent to tire the American public of the never ending war. The US never lost a battle in Vietnam but, that is not the point of an insurgency. The irony of the Tet offensive is it was percieved in the US as a defeat while in reality is was a crushing US victory that lead to the complete extintion of the Viet Cong. If you can read some of Giaps writings on the war from the Norths perspective is amazing how close the North was to compete collapse only to be saved by a political move in the US. And this was in the day of conscrition and a much closer parity of technology and weapons supplied by the Soviets. Now that parity no longer exists. More so now than ever a stand up fight with the US is not going to end well.

If you honestly believe that the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam War then the US government have carried out a fantastic propaganda exercise on it's citizens:-

www.g2mil.com...

reply to post by SplitInfinity


If a nation wants to fall flat on its face hard it should underestimate the strenght of its enemy.

Okay, so what happened to the talk about advancements in military technology?

If you want to debate ongoing conflicts overseas or past wars, then I suggest you move your discussion to the "Current Events Forums" or elsewhere.. Lol

Sigh.

This is the "Conspiracy Theory Forums" section. Stick with it, guys.. Sheesh.

Some of you need to stop this nonsense about how much high tech our military has.

It is not about high tech per se...Nor training per se..although the training is very important as history points out to us.

It is about leadership. You can have all the high tech you want but if you have poor leadership you have a pile of junk sitting on the shelves ..useless.

The question is ...what is the caliber of leadership from the White House on down.

To my knowledge ..albeit limited ...do we have "shooters" in positions of leadership over our military or do we have politicial appointees...politicians?? Social Engineers in uniform.

What kind of leader or leaders did we have over our people in Mogadishu, Somalia?? How about in Bengazi???

Think it through carefully folks..for we are going to go through this crossroads again...soon enough.

If you personally have to go out there with your backside in the grass..what kind of leader do you want watching your back...a shooter or a politician??

Do we have shooters as leaders or does our military today have politicians?? Leaders worried more about political social programs than the troops???

One of my greatest fears and concerns is that with the badly eroding caliber of leadership over the years...our troops are going to get stuck out there at some far corner or cesspool of this world with no way home and no help..no shooters to back them up..only politicians wanting to cover their own backsides.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Double post.

OP,

Have you seen on Youtube, I think it is the Air Force, they have developed these walking drones.
They're amazing to watch. They walk like person. Even though, I detest the drones watching us.