Previous  1 ... 8  9  10  11  12  Next

   

the free world will become a much scarier place, the day that China is able to dictate terms to the USA.

   

You are cherry picking. Just because you put cash into something does not make it the best. If you want to compare SOF Shep is right the IDF has some of the best trained in the world, then there is the Spetsnaz, the SAS ect. With that said you cant cherry pick a 5% of a military and say “These guys are the best in the world which makes the other 95% the best in the world”
I was talking about your general soldier and combat doctrine. For example Canadian soldiers are some of the best trained in the world because they are so versatile. The Canadian Military is so small a soldier must be able to do several jobs. Also due to our small size we can afford better equipment for the average soldier. Now that is just the army, I have heard the Chinese has the largest airforce and could give the Americans a run for their debt. Sadly though I have very little knowledge of the Navies of the world, and although I know the Brits have some impressive stuff, I have a feeling the Americans might be the best in that aspect.

   

The Iraqi army had no will to fight.

Its different when the will is there to carry out conflict.

It would be impossible for the US to occupy a densely and highly populated country.

   

the United States has the most powerful military for alot of reasons:

1) The money we spend on our military is more then the next 13 countries combined(and yes if you put alot of money into something it usually does meen its good)

2) We have about 6x more Aerial-Based Weapons and Navy ships then anyone else

3) The standard training for our soldiers is so intense

4) Our specially trained soldiers (Marines, Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, ect)and we have more specially trained soldiers then anyone else, and there also better trained

5) Our dedication to our country

6) The wars we have been in have sharped our sense for war(for example the war in Iraq)



The US military is going to be top dog for a long time to come, the only problem in America right now is the economy which has also been getting stronger as of late.

   

Lets see...


Not really, just because you throw money at the problem doesnt mean it will work. Look at guerrilla warfare, low cost high effectiveness.


May be true, I dont know for sure I am quite clueless when it comes to Navy and Air force matters.


Not really, at least no more than any other nation. Even if it was the case being "The most eXtreme" will not make you the best.


Better trained, no. The most? Im sure that the Russians and Chinese who also have a larger army would have more SOF soldiers.


How is that different from any other military?


If you mean experience, Iraq may have taught the Americans some lessons, but they are looking at the Canadians right now for what to do in Afghanistan. So just because you feel you were successful in one theater does not mean you will successful in another.




Sorry to say the Chinese are gaining fast, and will surpass the Americans in the coming future.

   

A better poll question would be, "Can a nation that finds itself unable to suppress an insurgency composed of illiterate bomb-making goatherds even pretend to be 'the most powerful country in the world'?"

   

Name one country that can suppress an armed insurgency with the level of political oversight and media coverage that we in the west have to contend with. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but if the press was locked out and the troops were allowed to do what's neccesary, as horrible as that might be, this war would be over.

A good example was the British forces commander being questioned why it was taking so long to capture Basra in Gulf War 2. His answer was if he wanted he could take Basra in one day, but at the end of that day there would be nothing standing and most inhabitants dead. Due to public outrage at such actions he had to place his troops in much more perile to minimize civilian casualties. Something we didn't worry about in WW2.

   

Wish I knew what that said.

   

This is what the translator says...

Children what here to argue! The strongest country is Russia! I have answered your question! Arms of America weak.

   

He said "how could we have done so badly at the Olympics and been routed by team Canada"?

He also said that Tims makes the best coffee in the world and Celine Dion is a national treasure.

Well the last bit might have actually been shrill harpy. My Russians a little rusty.

   

   

I know. It was a joke.

Я знаю. Это была шутка.

   

Money, like size, isn't a sufficient metric by which to judge an army "most powerful," but it is certainly a necessary element in the overall equation.

While it is correct to say that the larger budget does not necessarily guarantee victory -- the Bolivian experience during the 1932-1935 Chaco War is an illustrative example -- it certainly confers useful advantages, as it did for the Union Army during the American Civil War, and the United States Army during the Second World War.

Let me ask you this question, which may help put the point into perspective: insurgent forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflicted considerable losses on Coalition forces, whether we calculate in blood or in treasure. If the roles were reversed, and the insurgent forces were invading the United States while our armed forces were on the defensive, how do you think they would fare? If we "swap" another army for the United States Army in Iraq or Afghanistan, but imposed similar limitations, how do you think that army would fare?

Despite Russia's considerable advantage in weight of numbers and air power, it did not fare as well as expected against the Georgians. That is a direct reflection of the age and quality of Russian equipment and doctrine.



As force multipliers and logistical support, a large blue-water navy and high-quality air force confer enormous advantage.

Israel has consistently demonstrated the value of a relatively superior air force.



The United States military is a professional fighting force. It is at least as well-trained as western European militaries, and much superior to Russian and Chinese forces. Of all nations with such high standards of training, the United States fields the greatest number of troops.



American special forces are certainly better-trained than their Russian and Chinese counterparts. If budgets speak nowhere else, they speak there. That's not taking into account nearly a decade of continuous deployment in combat, which can and must provide enormous relative advantage.



It matters when drawing comparisons against armies in the developing world, or those comprised of conscripts.



Everybody looks at everybody else. The United States military is currently over-focused on the kinds of wars it is fighting -- small insurgencies. Russia has been over-focused on its nuclear mission, by contrast.



The Chinese economy is gaining fast, but the Chinese military and technology base lag far behind. So does Chinese military doctrine.



A better question might be: why is this a valid measure of power?

   

Because maybe military power is not an absolute, that you will win a war. Does not matter how many toys you have our how advance your technology is.

Something "Americans" have just not figured out quite yet.

Diplomacy and winning the hearts of the people, sometimes works more effectively than cowboy tactics.

Saddam Hussein treated his people with defiance and tortured many. The USA rolled in with little fight.

However, if Saddam had provided for his people, shared his wealth, built schools and had his peoples heart... do you think you would have seen the soldiers surrendering or fighting to their deaths.




BTW, I love this video.

   

Previous  1 ... 8  9  10  11  12  Next