Forum:US military supremacy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- (ec) Didn't you know that all Christian Americans were fighting for America with every prayer and every buck they spent on good Ameircan business? But seriously now that's wrong (sort by active). Although, they have gathered some extensive experience,
I'm pretty sure that India and China could beat the living shit out of America. Also a united Army of the EU would be bigger than then the American Army, about 1,5 times IIRC - let's hope that comes up in the next EU treaty.…Sorry for ever questioning the all powerfull strength of the - whatever their official name is. --ǓḤṂ³ 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (--ǓḤṂ³ 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC))- Sorry, but the U.S. military simply is unparalleled. India can't even beat Pakistan in Kashmir, and China's army is large but not nearly as effective. If size was all that mattered, Israel would have been creamed by the Arabs ages ago. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was going by sheer numbers, technology off course is a big factor, it would also be a factor who attacks and who is attacked and were the war takes place. I hope we'll never find out. --ǓḤṂ³ 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that we have the best equipped army in the world (fuck, we should with the insane spending), it's just that even though Obama sucked the army's dick, he didn't cup the balls. At least not to Jpatt's satisfaction. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- America's military budget makes up more than two thirds of all of NATO's defense expenditures combined (twice of what all the European allies spend), about five times as much as China, ten times as much as Russia, and according to WP, twenty times as much as India. For that kind of money, I've got no doubt that they've managed to put together the best military present in the world today. However, it's still incredibly arrogant and idiotic to rank them above, say, the Roman legions or the Mongol hordes, who were peerless for centuries. Röstigraben (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines of biblical armies, when it was routine for hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die in a single battle. Can you imagine supporting millions of soldiers in desert climates using nothing but pack mules and slaves? Pretty impressive, right? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Biblical armies are impressive in numbers, but I'm just as impressed that Rapunzel was able to grow her hair so long and still have the neck strength to withstand a man climbing up it. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but many of the materials are produced at much higher prices and the wages of American soldiers are probably much higher then the ones of say Chinese or Indian soldiers. The free market sometimes is a bitch. --ǓḤṂ³ 20:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The market for defense systems and weaponry is global, not local. That said, American military personnel enjoy outrageous compensation so you have a good point there. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it's going to be more costly to develop cutting-edge technologies and be the first to implement them. But that also results in a force that will always fight with a technological edge, resulting in absolutely lopsided victories that have little to do with the relations in numbers. In 2003, the Americans and British made short work of an Iraqi army that outnumbered them by more than three to one, without sustaining many casualties. Highly-trained specialists and veterans command higher wages and compensations than draftees, but that's also something that can easily make all the difference between a unit breaking or holding its ground. Regarding troop levels, the American forces now have a very high share of actual combat troops relative to overall personnel, because they've outsourced most of the logistics that otherwise tie down a lot of soldiers. At the unit level, they've got much more combat experience than any other army in the world, and they're the foremost innovators in tactics and doctrines. The US military is really quite impressive, it's just a shame that most of it is wasted conducting useless wars and chasing a bunch of terrorists who know how to evade a superior force. Röstigraben (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't going for technology or higher up soldiers, but for the simple soldier: A Chinese or Indian might be able to support his family well with 600$, but for the same basics the American might need 3000$ - that alone is 5 times more. What I meant was basic things like rent, gas, food and the various bills one needs to pay every month. On the other side, the Forces won't buy a carrier or a submarine that wasn't actually made by trusted men and women. and those things really make a big difference. Guns and stuff yes, but the specialised stuff is AFAIK build in country by people that are educated well enough to do the job. My point is we also simply can't look at the spending, because that is also dependent on various factors. Another thing is the indoctrination of the soldiers, there the US is quite strong but I think China is stronger. --ǓḤṂ³ 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You may think that's the case, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a mainstream military expert who would agree with you. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean? "that" is a bit problematic when somebody made three points… --ǓḤṂ³ 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry - I was speaking to your last point about the Chinese military. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean? "that" is a bit problematic when somebody made three points… --ǓḤṂ³ 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Differences in wages that arise from generally different price levels don't even factor into this much. Sure, prices are higher in the US, because it's a more mature economy, but that also results in higher government revenues. If the Chinese army wants to recruit a specialist, they'll have to offer a market-level salary (relative to country-specific wage levels) or other incentives in order to make it attractive for someone to sign up. A government is not a multinational corporation that can hire cheap employees in one country to produce goods for consumers in another, who'll then pay higher prices because their wages are also higher. They have to hire and employ people mostly within the confines of a single national economy, unable to take advantage of different price levels. "Indoctrination" is indeed hard to measure in an meaningful way, but it doesn't increase the individual abilities of a soldier. At best, it'll have some effect on general morale and unit cohesion, something that the US military certainly doesn't seem to be lacking. Bottom line, defense expenditures are not a perfect indicator of military strength, but the best one there is. Röstigraben (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think wages are a huge factor. The US military expenditure is still 6 times that of China. In addition to expenditure, you can also take into consideration the equipment. In terms of sheer number, the US finishes first in number of aircraft carriers (12, second place has 2), first in cruisers, first in destroyers, first in submarines, first in nuclear submarines, first in fighters, first in bombers, second in tanks, and third in frigates. The US Air Force has the most number of planes. Second place is the US NAVY. All that's just quantitative. If you looked at the quality of the equipment and technological advancement, the US would probably end up only doing better. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- You may think that's the case, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a mainstream military expert who would agree with you. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't going for technology or higher up soldiers, but for the simple soldier: A Chinese or Indian might be able to support his family well with 600$, but for the same basics the American might need 3000$ - that alone is 5 times more. What I meant was basic things like rent, gas, food and the various bills one needs to pay every month. On the other side, the Forces won't buy a carrier or a submarine that wasn't actually made by trusted men and women. and those things really make a big difference. Guns and stuff yes, but the specialised stuff is AFAIK build in country by people that are educated well enough to do the job. My point is we also simply can't look at the spending, because that is also dependent on various factors. Another thing is the indoctrination of the soldiers, there the US is quite strong but I think China is stronger. --ǓḤṂ³ 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it's going to be more costly to develop cutting-edge technologies and be the first to implement them. But that also results in a force that will always fight with a technological edge, resulting in absolutely lopsided victories that have little to do with the relations in numbers. In 2003, the Americans and British made short work of an Iraqi army that outnumbered them by more than three to one, without sustaining many casualties. Highly-trained specialists and veterans command higher wages and compensations than draftees, but that's also something that can easily make all the difference between a unit breaking or holding its ground. Regarding troop levels, the American forces now have a very high share of actual combat troops relative to overall personnel, because they've outsourced most of the logistics that otherwise tie down a lot of soldiers. At the unit level, they've got much more combat experience than any other army in the world, and they're the foremost innovators in tactics and doctrines. The US military is really quite impressive, it's just a shame that most of it is wasted conducting useless wars and chasing a bunch of terrorists who know how to evade a superior force. Röstigraben (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The market for defense systems and weaponry is global, not local. That said, American military personnel enjoy outrageous compensation so you have a good point there. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines of biblical armies, when it was routine for hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die in a single battle. Can you imagine supporting millions of soldiers in desert climates using nothing but pack mules and slaves? Pretty impressive, right? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- America's military budget makes up more than two thirds of all of NATO's defense expenditures combined (twice of what all the European allies spend), about five times as much as China, ten times as much as Russia, and according to WP, twenty times as much as India. For that kind of money, I've got no doubt that they've managed to put together the best military present in the world today. However, it's still incredibly arrogant and idiotic to rank them above, say, the Roman legions or the Mongol hordes, who were peerless for centuries. Röstigraben (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that we have the best equipped army in the world (fuck, we should with the insane spending), it's just that even though Obama sucked the army's dick, he didn't cup the balls. At least not to Jpatt's satisfaction. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was going by sheer numbers, technology off course is a big factor, it would also be a factor who attacks and who is attacked and were the war takes place. I hope we'll never find out. --ǓḤṂ³ 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the U.S. military simply is unparalleled. India can't even beat Pakistan in Kashmir, and China's army is large but not nearly as effective. If size was all that mattered, Israel would have been creamed by the Arabs ages ago. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Didn't you know that all Christian Americans were fighting for America with every prayer and every buck they spent on good Ameircan business? But seriously now that's wrong (sort by active). Although, they have gathered some extensive experience,
- Sorry UHM, but in almost every scenario bar some specific exceptions, the US's military power is by far greater than any other nation's, including a hypothetical united European military, (the thought of which makes me giggle).
- Those specific exceptions might include: an all out nuclear exchange with Russia, the outcome of which could depend largely on luck; a conventional military invasion by the US on a country with a large standing army such as China or India; counter-insurgency.
- There are obviously others, but in like-for-like comparisons the US military is extraordinarily powerful. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- And your comment "Sorry for ever questioning the all powerfull strength of the - whatever their official name is." above is just petulant. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a joke, a bad one but a joke. Sarcasm doesn't come off really well on a wiki... --ǓḤṂ³ 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No! Really? You don't say! --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Minge. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a joke, a bad one but a joke. Sarcasm doesn't come off really well on a wiki... --ǓḤṂ³ 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- And your comment "Sorry for ever questioning the all powerfull strength of the - whatever their official name is." above is just petulant. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Handy edit break for discussing Ajkgordon's assertion.[edit]
"Those specific exceptions might include: an all out nuclear exchange with Russia...a conventional military invasion by the US on a country with a large standing army such as China or India, [or] counter-insurgency. Jesus, Gordo, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic here, given that the third exception you list defines a huge part of American combat operations in the last half-century; Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan, none of which can even be remotely described as a victory, and which put together are responsible for the overwhelming majority of US combat deaths since Korea. America's military might has made the likelihood of a conventional attack on American soil (which hasn't happened since the War of 1812, anyway) just about nil, but, with the exception of Iraq I, the US has proven itself capable of beating the crap out of countries with negligible military capability (Serbia, Grenada) and completely unable to deal with war as it has been fought for the most part since 1945 -- the small scale counter-insurgency. Twenty years of the last fifty spent bogged down by guys armed with nothing bigger than an AK-47 is a pretty important exception P-Foster (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? What are you talking about? I'm comparing America's military might with everyone else's. It's comparatively the most powerful. End of. That's hardly a controversial or even debatable statement. The rest of what you say is, of course, entirely true and not something I would contradict. Read the posts I was responding to. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)