Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

North America is naturally secure from any invasion. Could Russia drop bombs on it? Yes. China doesn't have long-range ("strategic") military capability YET although they now seem interested in developing it. I think we have to approach this from the idea of the US vs Russia or China in a neutral territory because fighting on the other's home soil is probably logistically impossible.

The American people will never loose their stomach for fighting a foreign war, they are generally socialized to support these things, since they come at no direct cost to the individual citizen and are wrapped in all sort of patriotic ideals. That's one of the down sides of having an all-volunteer army and not the draft. American citizens would think twice about Iraq and drum-beating for Iran if THEY actually had to go over and fight or even pay a "war tax" or have consumer goods rationed for the war supply as they did in the past. Now they get a made for tv prime-time war they can cheer on from the comforts of their living room AND a tax cut at the same time.

Which brings me to my second point. The US is quickly (but not quite yet) becoming a paper tiger simply due to its economic situation. No doubt its military is second to none in terms of technology but can the US afford to use it in any real war? The US hasn't fought an enemy of comparable sophistication or technology since WW2 and one has to wonder if they could, they lost to Vietnam and are not exactly experiencing stellar success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Strategically and tactically, Russia and China have some "elite" units whose skill, training, vehicles and equipment are farily new and are at least comparable to what the US has, but their strategy lies with quantity over quality. They have hoardes and hoardes of older, obscolete vehicles,and aircraft with circa 1960's and 1970's technology in their order of battle that they would use to outnumber and overwhelm (or at least preoccupy) US defences while the elite units act as shock troops to punch holes in strategic locations. It would be a mess that's for sure, I'm not sure Russia or China wouldn't win.

   

To be fair to the US(economics aside) WW2 was total war. I think if you let the US army fight an unrestricted, conventional war, without worrying about "collateral damage", the US would do better than you might think.
Nations like Iraq and Vietnam have/had very little in the way of heavy military industry. Their equipment is bought, so there is no legitimate reason to bomb the shit out of their cities and civilians.(Displacement it was called back in WW2).
These more recent wars are harder because they aren't at war with a country or it's people, they're at war with a few very dangerous elements within those countries.

   

sure, if the US and Russia/China were meeting in some fictional open field somewhere, the kill ratio would be extremely favourable for the US. But the Russians faced similar odds against the Nazis and prevailed, just overwhelming the enemy with human waves. Numbers count for something.

   

A lot of you seem to be discounting that the last six years of war have battle-hardened the US Army and Marines. While they do have severe problems with morale in certain areas and as well with the destructive toll constant use has taken on equipment, they've also gained enough tactical experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that it becomes more logical to believe that the US conventional forces are now more lethal today than they were in 2003. Any assumptions that the United States military are pushovers in any area would seem to be more the product of feverish imagination than of any legitimate or reasoned assessment of American war capability.

   

meh, that's counter-insurgency warfare ,thats a totally different scenario from open state-to-state war. That's going door-to-door looking for bomb-makers and snipers, and occasional firefights with unsophisticated, lightly armed opponents, totally different altogether.

Besides Russia has had much a more intense experience in Chechnya and Afghanistan recently as well.

   

China does have ICBMs that can hit the West Coast. They are fewer in number, older, and far more inaccurate than those that Russia and the US have, but they do have them.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html

And China is actually moving away from the old, attrition style of warfare Mao had them adopt. The PLA is now a professional force, with more and more modern equipment coming online each month, from Kilo subs and Sovremenny destroyers to Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. They watched the US (and UN coalition) dismantle Iraq in the first Gulf War, as well as saw how ineffective their feared ‘Silkworm’ missiles were against Western navies (not a single ship hit).

That is why they are transitioning to the same maneuver style of warfare the US employs. The problem is that it is incredibly costly and China needs most of its money for infrastructure and economy building, making the modernization quite slow. And while the Russians might enjoy spending the money from arms sales to China, even they aren’t stupid enough to part with the best equipment they have, such as long-range heavy bombers (for example China has wanted Backfire bombers for years). Even with large increases in defence spending in the past twenty years, it will still be decades before they can even begin to match the US on an even basis (and they know it). Any sort of real conflict between China/Russia and the USA would still be a very one-sided affair.

But what the modernization does do is weaken nations in East Asia who might oppose it, such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. China is still a very long way from becoming a global superpower, but it is quickly becoming a regional one.

   

Hi Everyone,
It depends on how you define powerful. It's a great question, but it really deserves to be broken down into multiple areas such as Air Force, Navy and Army. And then each of those could be broken down into multiple areas.

For instance to create a real navy takes far more than "a few years". Thus at sea at least, it would be decades before anyone else approaches the US.
Narayan

   

"An alliance with the powerful is never to be trusted" - i don't remember.

   

the United States deffinetly still has the most powerful all around military for a couple reason. We spend way more money on our military then anybody else, we have better training then anyone else, and those in the military are deticated to their country.
The war in Iraq really does not reflect the USA's military strength because when Al qaeda and other terrorist organizations actually were fighting, instead of just being on the run, we were absolutly destroying them. the real combat actually lasted a little over a month, then they realized they would be wiped out fairly easily if they stayed and fought it out like real men, so they took off and are on the run setting up bombs all over the place, that is what is killing out troops roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
The USA is still in Iraq because if they leave now there will be another terrorist attack such as 9-11. Before they leave they have to kill or capture all of the leaders of al qaeda so they cannot plan another terrorist attack.
The United States of America has the strongest, most advanced and most sophisticated military the world has ever seen.

   

Power depends on the situation. A Us Aircraft Carrier groups can project a great deal of power in a lot of places, but it dependends on the situation.

The US has very little power in North Korea and in the Middle East American POwer is easily circumvented.

There are alos places where we dare not interveen for anumber of reasons so our power is zero.

Poltical and enonomic power also come into play. America at the moment is broke and there are a number of places in the world that hate our guts on general principle.

So yes, be are powerful, but we do have limits.

   

Well as a member of the navy's amphibious assault unit i can tell you first hand, nobody can match up with our military that is a fact. And the US is not broke, there were economic problems obviously but turn on a tv every once in a while our economy is picking up.

   

Thats debatable; well trained yes, better than anyone else? Far from it.

   

sorry to tell ya buddy but nobody else compares, I have the first hand experience and im saying it is not even debatable...SEALs, Marines, Rangers...all the $ we put into the military is not put to waste.


If you dont believe me Check out www.globalfirepower.com

   

as a matter of fact, just type it into google, all legitimate websites will tell you the same thing...

   

The best toys fore sure, but I wouldn't go as far as saying the best trained. The IDF, though small, is a hell of a lot better trained than almost all other militaries in the world. While the US military far outweighs the PLA, both rely on sheer numbers and firepower to win an engagement. Mind you the PLA is full of conscripts which make the worst type of soldier. Remember how Iraq went from having the 5th largest army in the world to the second largest in Iraq in about a three day period?

   

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  Next