The Next World War

[The Deco]

The reason why countries will never disband there army is simple.

There is a difference between an Army and Diplomacy.

ill make it simple

Army: Brute force
Diplomacy: Most of the times - compromise.

When do you use brute force? When you want something very much but the other side doesn't want, in any way, to give you that.

When do you use compromise? When each side can let them self give something they have to the other side and the other side will do the same.

And we all know, sometimes we want something so bad, and the other side won't give it away in any chance by our terms, then there is no room to talk.

 

[Deathshot]

The reason why countries will never disband there army is simple.

There is a difference between an Army and Diplomacy.

ill make it simple

Army: Brute force
Diplomacy: Most of the times - compromise.

When do you use brute force? When you want something very much but the other side doesn't want, in any way, to give you that.

When do you use compromise? When each side can let them self give something they have to the other side and the other side will do the same.

And we all know, sometimes we want something so bad, and the other side won't give it away in any chance by our terms, then there is no room to talk.

Supply and Demand turns into Supply or Die.

 

[Chakra-X]

you do know the Chinese army is over double the size of the US army if you include paramilitary forces. Russia and china have been sharing military technology for years now, and china is quite capable of holding its ground. North Korea has 50% of its population employed by the military in some way or another. There's tons of armies that are bigger than the US, US has technology on their side though, and nukes. Take a look at Vietnam, the US were beaten then by a much smaller force. Contrary to what you might believe, America is not invincible, far from it.

I must of referred to dated information then D:...Like...Cold war era info.

But when I say "the majority" of countries I mean the small ones. I do not think America is invincible at all. I actually think I got my, er, "facts" mixed up. I think it is our technological strength that rises above most? If our goal was just to fight our enemy in to unconditional surrender, that's where the strength comes in. Actually taking over the government? Not so much, like with Vietnam as you said. Also, places like China, Korea, Russia, etc. are exempted from what I considered "most countries" we could conquer.

And to who it may concern, please do not interpret this as hyper-patriotism American arrogance. I was just under the impression that we have a really good military compared to the *majority* of the world.

 

[ESFPro]

Lets not forget that the Russians have nuclear subs

 

[Skiwan]

The USA's technology does put them far ahead of most of their competitors. The troops receive good training, and it's a well organised military. I say this, but in the first few months of the Iraq war, the US killed more British troops than the Iraqis did.

The reason the US lost in the Vietnam was due to the fact that it wasn't somewhere they could bomb/missile for the most part. Instead they were forced to use infantry, however the Vietnamese used guerrilla tactics, because they knew the land better than the invading forces, they had many different ways to trick, ambush and trap their enemy.

 

[Chakra-X]

I say this, but in the first few months of the Iraq war, the US killed more British troops than the Iraqis did.

What do you mean by that? As in, friendly fire?

 

[Skiwan]

Yup, within the first few weeks the US shot down a British helicopter, and blew up a British tank. Killing the troops inside.

 

[sub]

The thing about China is, yes, they have a big military, but what good is a big military if you don't have the means of getting them from point A to point B? Seriously, they don't have the means to do it.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Skiwan]

Not quite sure what your point is, they have the largest air force in the world in terms of vessels, and the second largest Navy, behind the US. If those don't qualify as transport, I don't know what does.

 

[Killface]

Lets not forget that the Russians have nuclear subs

We have Nimitz class Super Carriers, the Ohio and Virginia class Nuclear Ballistic SSBNs, and Air Dominance for the next 30 years.. Thanks to the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. (At least that's what Northrup Grumman, Boeing Aerospace, and Lockheed Martin claim)

 

[Deathshot]

You know... If America played its cards right, we could probably be on a few Nation's good sides that we are on the bad side....

 

[Killface]

War will happen if there are too many weapons in the world, if weapon produce is allowed to stack up. As long as the weapons industry, the biggest industry in the world exists, we will always have wars- and eventually, we will most likely have another World War.

I don't seriously think America could win another World War though, economically it's already owned by the east and it's military is badly trained and un-organised, although highly technologically advanced that technology is useless without any money to spend on it.
Interestingly enough, in terms of America's badly organised military, in Russia's what-if-America-nukes-us post Cold War backups plans, destroying the White House isn't part of that, because they believe if they destroyed it the US military would become far better organised and the whole country would be a bigger threat.

One area that America has it's advantage of course is the spread of it's influence, many of the eastern countries loyal to the US are facing Russia's borders.

In what ways are the US military unorganized?

 

[Deathshot]

We need to play a game of Online Risk... I have never played it before and everyone says it a fun game.... If there isnt a Risk Online then someone needs to make it.

 

[Killface]

Far too much bureaucracy in it, too much policy quoting and confused decision making. So many decisions made have to go all the way back to the White House before they can be approved, it slows the entire process down.
Just look at the Iraq war and Haliburton to see how badly organised and mis-treated the troops are.

I wouldn't necessarily say its "unorganized"... It just has a poor method of process. Our military's organization is substantial in my opinion.

However, i do agree... I think only things such as an invasion, wide mass air strikes, and strategic and tactical nuclear launches should be authorized by the president. Nothing less, nothing more. Having to go to the president every time the military wants to drop a Blu-88 Daisy Cutter on a building or authorize a B-2 Spirit to enter neutral air space is too much.

 

[DiebytheSword]

you do know the Chinese army is over double the size of the US army if you include paramilitary forces. Russia and china have been sharing military technology for years now, and china is quite capable of holding its ground. North Korea has 50% of its population employed by the military in some way or another. There's tons of armies that are bigger than the US, US has technology on their side though, and nukes. Take a look at Vietnam, the US were beaten then by a much smaller force. Contrary to what you might believe, America is not invincible, far from it.

No american truly believes that, or we wouldn't have a stockpile of deterrents. The US's strength lies in force projection. No single military on earth can move as much military hardware, people, and resources to a front line that is not in their own nation. If the US tried to invade Russia or China it would be very ugly, but it is unimaginable at this point that any other nation, perhaps even coalition of nations, could breach US borders, and hold territory therein.

Fortnox, you are also badly mistaken about the training levels of our troops. The United States is well known to have far above average shooters, with a concentration on shot grouping and not on old style "fill the air with lead and hope you hit things" drills that a certain Kalishnakov rifle was made for. That level of marksmanship is maintained through training. Similarly, the next nearest Air Force has training hours in the vehicles at one tenth of training time spent by US pilots. There is a reason the US military budget is literally ten times greater than the next nearest military spender, and it isn't all super weapons.

 

[sub]

A lot of it is super weapons though. We just canned a project that would attach a laser onto the front of an aircraft, the projects goal was for the laser to be used to shoot down other aircraft. Long story short, the entire project was a failure, it didn't work and was a money sink.

 

[Chakra-X]

Haha those pirate snipers were a nice demonstration of American gunmenship. And damn you Wallmart of name dropping, making me google Daisy Cutter...

I only half agree with fortnox about weapon industries being the backbone of war. I think it's a gigantic piece to the machine, but when when resources run low, or life changing disagreements develop, humans fight. I just hope we can continue to improve diplomacy.

 

[DiebytheSword]

A lot of it is super weapons though. We just canned a project that would attach a laser onto the front of an aircraft, the projects goal was for the laser to be used to shoot down other aircraft. Long story short, the entire project was a failure, it didn't work and was a money sink.

They canned the tactical laser? The sad part was that it did work, it has worked in field tests. Why would they can it? There were plans to mount them on the Air Force version of the JSF.

After some quick research I see that its not canned, its going back to a study phase for both the airborn ABM laser and the advanced tactical laser. Apparently Gates felt that the laser wasn't accurate enough, and he wants them to eliminate the "jitters" and high cost of the project.

 

[Killface]

And damn you Wallmart of name dropping, making me google Daisy Cutter...

Haha sorry man.. I read up on military weaponry and Air Force armament systems a lot, so i know most of the coined terms for weapons and weapon systems. You could have just asked, i would've told you what the Blu-88 was ;]

They canned the tactical laser? The sad part was that it did work, it has worked in field tests. Why would they can it? There were plans to mount them on the Air Force version of the JSF.

After some quick research I see that its not canned, its going back to a study phase for both the airborn ABM laser and the advanced tactical laser. Apparently Gates felt that the laser wasn't accurate enough, and he wants them to eliminate the "jitters" and high cost of the project.

JSF meaning the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter, right? Or are you talking about another jet? Because as far as i know of, that laser is barely small enough to fit on a Boeing 757, let alone a fighter jet.

Not unless im thinking of a different laser system. We are talking about the Orbital laser that's mounted in the nose of a Boeing 757 and designed to shoot down ICBM's and fighter aircraft, correct? If im thinking right, it was the fore-front of Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense shield.