[SpaceGhost]

This thread is asking for trouble. Our military is the finest in my opinion but I also hold those of our allies in very high regard. I feel much better rolling into a major conflict with the well trained and equipped Brits and Aussies to our right and left. We can pretty much always count on them and they are tough as nails for the most part. I have nothing negative to say about them or their training.

I have also worked with some members of smaller militaries from places like eastern Europe. These guys don't have the greatest training or equipment but they always worked hard and they never complained a bit.

I think one of the primary keys to the strength of the US military is its global reach. No other military has the global presence we have. We have a military presence in all corners of the globe and can rapidly respond to a threat anywhere. We can also deploy aircraft from the US on a non-stop flight to deliver ordinance to any place on the planet at a moment's notice. I would argue we are the only ones who can do that.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

Well, one carrier battle group is enough to take on some nations. I've heard some experts say that if the US military takes on the entire world's armed forces, it will be hard to predict the winner.

I don't know about that. Take this hypothetical situation: If every single other country decided to ally together and invade the US using conventional warfare, I don't think our military could withstand that kind of assault, even given the benefit of defending home soil. Again, this hypothetical assumes no involvement by US citizenry (who obviously are quite well-armed). I think we'd lose, eventually through attrition. No matter how advanced our technology or how well-trained our soldiers are, the rest of the world has more than enough men, bullets, bombs and missiles.

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by schoy

I don't know about that. Take this hypothetical situation: If every single other country decided to ally together and invade the US using conventional warfare, I don't think our military could withstand that kind of assault, even given the benefit of defending home soil. Again, this hypothetical assumes no involvement by US citizenry (who obviously are quite well-armed). I think we'd lose, eventually through attrition. No matter how advanced our technology or how well-trained our soldiers are, the rest of the world has more than enough men, bullets, bombs and missiles.

US military budget is about 40% of the whole world's military budget. With the advantage in technology, amount of weapons available, huge advantage in intelligence gathering capabilities, and better trained personnel, I say it is a doable battle even without considering the commanding difficulties in trying to get all those different nations' armed forces working together. You clearly underestimate how powerful US military is. Just do some quick searches on Google and you will see.

EDIT: I think you are ignoring the importance of advanced weapons. If you can see your enemy before they see you, you win. That is the modern warfare and the US has an huge advantage over the whole world. For example, 12 F22 has downed more than 100 enemy fighters during an international military exercise, which shows you the importance of technology in modern warfare.

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

US military budget is about 40% of the whole world's military budget. With the advantage in technology, amount of weapons available, huge advantage in intelligence gathering capabilities, and better trained personnel, I say it is a doable battle even without considering the commanding difficulties in trying to get all those different nations' armed forces working together. You clearly underestimate how powerful US military is. Just do some quick searches on Google and you will see.

then vietnam and the middle east should have been a walk in the park

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by bosster hymen

then vietnam and the middle east should have been a walk in the park

That is a very ignorant statement. Guerilla warfare and terrorism are whole other subject than the power of US military. It is not like the US can bomb the whole country and kill everyone.

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

That is a very ignorant statement. Guerilla warfare and terrorism are whole other subject than the power of US military. It is not like the US can bomb the whole country and kill everyone.

did you know that special forces training involves breaking an arm, so you know how to function with a broken arm?

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by bosster hymen

did you know that special forces training involves breaking an arm, so you know how to function with a broken arm?

[schoy]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

US military budget is about 40% of the whole world's military budget. With the advantage in technology, amount of weapons available, huge advantage in intelligence gathering capabilities, and better trained personnel, I say it is a doable battle even without considering the commanding difficulties in trying to get all those different nations' armed forces working together. You clearly underestimate how powerful US military is. Just do some quick searches on Google and you will see.

EDIT: I think you are ignoring the importance of advanced weapons. If you can see your enemy before they see you, you win. That is the modern warfare and the US has an huge advantage over the whole world. For example, 12 F22 has downed more than 100 enemy fighters during an international military exercise, which shows you the importance of technology in modern warfare.

And I think you're ignoring the importance of attrition. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tary_personnel.

US has 2.3M active and reserve military personnel.

Just counting those countries with military personnel greater than 1M, those 10 or so countries (not counting the other 150 countries) equates to 35M. Don't tell me that 2.3M service members, armed with the latest in technological wizardry could withstand a 35M person assault, armed with "lowly" AK-47s and last generation Soviet tanks. Even if we had air superiority, the sheer number of planes that they could throw at us would keep our air power so busy that they couldn't even provide ground support. They could just wave after wave of planes; if anything, our vaunted F22s would be destroyed while they were being refueled. C'mon now ...

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by schoy

And I think you're ignoring the importance of attrition. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tary_personnel.

US has 2.3M active and reserve military personnel.

Just counting those countries with military personnel greater than 1M, those 10 or so countries (not counting the other 150 countries) equates to 35M. Don't tell me that 2.3M service members, armed with the latest in technological wizardry could withstand a 35M person assault, armed with "lowly" AK-47s and last generation Soviet tanks. Even if we had air superiority, the sheer number of planes that they could throw at us would keep our air power so busy that they couldn't even provide ground support. They could just wave after wave of planes; if anything, our vaunted F22s would be destroyed while they were being refueled. C'mon now ...

It seems as if you are viewing this happening on a huge open field or something.

I'm not really arguing either outcome, but you seem to have over simplified all of it.

I'm seeing a carrier group in the Caribbean, three in the atlantic, four in the pacific and one on the north side of Alaska to make sure those Canucks don't leave the back door open. That leaves one for search and destroy orders as well as 2 in reserve. With that scenario alone, you'd be hard pressed to enter US air space. Subs would be patrolling the same waters for troop transports as well as enemy subs. You think U-boats did damage in WWII... give the current class of US subs the same stage to perform on and see what happens. Do you really think that a ship of any decent size is going to make it past all that naval tonnage? Just imagine 71 submarines patrolling those waters. Add in their buddy ships, say.... 60 destroyers, 20 cruisers, nearly as many frigates, and oh yeah, don't forget about the 10 aircraft carriers...... Me thinks nary a fly will enter our air space let alone a large lumbering ship full of troops.

These other countries, without carriers, can't just fly their air force over here. Where are they going to land? They can't ALL refuel in air. You certainly can't reload in air. You think Mexico is going to provide a base of operations for them to land, fuel and reload? You don't think the gulf carrier group won't take that out in a matter of hours, likely without a single manned aircraft? You think they could actually reach Mexico to even try and set up a base of operations?

Again, i'm not arguing for either outcome but I understand that the above sounds a bit biased. Those are just the facts, so in my slightly educated opinion, i think we'd do pretty well holding our own. The power wielded by a single carrier group out matches nearly any armed force in the world.


Notice that we haven't even involved the Air Force yet. This would be one war where the Navy and AF gets to talk trash to the Marines and Army for doing all the work.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by schoy

And I think you're ignoring the importance of attrition. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tary_personnel.

US has 2.3M active and reserve military personnel.

Just counting those countries with military personnel greater than 1M, those 10 or so countries (not counting the other 150 countries) equates to 35M. Don't tell me that 2.3M service members, armed with the latest in technological wizardry could withstand a 35M person assault, armed with "lowly" AK-47s and last generation Soviet tanks. Even if we had air superiority, the sheer number of planes that they could throw at us would keep our air power so busy that they couldn't even provide ground support. They could just wave after wave of planes; if anything, our vaunted F22s would be destroyed while they were being refueled. C'mon now ...

I'm not going to say we could take on the world all at the same time and be successful, but I am going to play devil's advocate on your above logic...

What about those other countries makes you think they would have the logistics capability to move all of their men and equipment into the US without any issue or intervention before they even get near the coast, especially with the Naval superiority that we have right now?

There is no magic wand that would make all of those countries' men and equipment appear at our doorstep where we'd have to fight man to man and tank to tank with exact numbers. No way, no how.

Adding up numbers of tanks and men is great, but it's not practical...

EDIT: And damn you Tonka for stealing my thunder. I guess I am too slow at typing...

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Templar

I'm not going to say we could take on the world all at the same time and be successful, but I am going to play devil's advocate on your above logic...

What about those other countries makes you think they would have the logistics capability to move all of their men and equipment into the US without any issue or intervention before they even get near the coast, especially with the Naval superiority that we have right now?

There is no magic wand that would make all of those countries' men and equipment appear at our doorstep where we'd have to fight man to man and tank to tank with exact numbers. No way, no how.

Adding up numbers of tanks and men is great, but it's not practical...

EDIT: And damn you Tonka for stealing my thunder. I guess I am too slow at typing...

You may be slow at typing, but we're on the same page for sure.

Like you i'm not wanting to be boastful about our military might. But i see the Navy out front just swatting down planes and boats at a video game pace. So forget about 2.3m military personnel doing the fighting, i'm thinking that the 325k in the Navy would likely hold everyone off. If one of the carrier groups fell, the USAF and Coast Guard would take up the slack in that region. Obviously ground forces would amass in that area as well for contingency.

What's more obvious is that all these played out scenarios all start with the knowledge that everyone is coming and the time to set up defensive measures.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

It seems as if you are viewing this happening on a huge open field or something.

I'm not really arguing either outcome, but you seem to have over simplified all of it.

I'm seeing a carrier group in the Caribbean, three in the atlantic, four in the pacific and one on the north side of Alaska to make sure those Canucks don't leave the back door open. That leaves one for search and destroy orders as well as 2 in reserve. With that scenario alone, you'd be hard pressed to enter US air space. Subs would be patrolling the same waters for troop transports as well as enemy subs. You think U-boats did damage in WWII... give the current class of US subs the same stage to perform on and see what happens. Do you really think that a ship of any decent size is going to make it past all that naval tonnage? Just imagine 71 submarines patrolling those waters. Add in their buddy ships, say.... 60 destroyers, 20 cruisers, nearly as many frigates, and oh yeah, don't forget about the 10 aircraft carriers...... Me thinks nary a fly will enter our air space let alone a large lumbering ship full of troops.

These other countries, without carriers, can't just fly their air force over here. Where are they going to land? They can't ALL refuel in air. You certainly can't reload in air. You think Mexico is going to provide a base of operations for them to land, fuel and reload? You don't think the gulf carrier group won't take that out in a matter of hours, likely without a single manned aircraft? You think they could actually reach Mexico to even try and set up a base of operations?

Again, i'm not arguing for either outcome but I understand that the above sounds a bit biased. Those are just the facts, so in my slightly educated opinion, i think we'd do pretty well holding our own. The power wielded by a single carrier group out matches nearly any armed force in the world.


Notice that we haven't even involved the Air Force yet. This would be one war where the Navy and AF gets to talk trash to the Marines and Army for doing all the work.

Just a small correction. The US currently has 8 active carriers.

Enterprise has been inactivated(and won't be sitting in reserve like Kitty Hawk is) and the Lincoln is going under a 3 year overhaul and refueling process.

The number will be back to 9-10(depending when the Washington will be going under its overhaul and refueling process) in 2016 when the Lincoln will be back in the fleet and the Ford will be commissioned.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Just a small correction. The US currently has 8 active carriers.

Enterprise has been inactivated(and won't be sitting in reserve like Kitty Hawk is) and the Lincoln is going under a 3 year overhaul and refueling process.

The number will be back to 9-10(depending when the Washington will be going under its overhaul and refueling process) in 2016 when the Lincoln will be back in the fleet and the Ford will be commissioned.

You get the gist.

[Rookie84]

I was going to post my reply to schoy but Mr Tonka and Templar already pretty much said what I wanted to say.

There is a reason why the US goes nuts for intelligence gathering and do all sorts of illegal activities under the water to gather intelligence, along with having the best intel assets.

[schoy]

Rather than quoting all of the above, note that I was responding to the assertion that in a conventional war between the US and the rest of the world would be coinflip (50/50 proposition). While I admire the US's military capability (bit of a hobby of mine), I cannot see how, if the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD (Chinese, Russians, Israelis, N. and S. Koreans, all of Western Europe, etc.) decided to unite against the US and was determined to wipe the US military off the map, they could not do so.

Also, note that the assertion I was responding to itself did not hypothesize how that engagement would take place, so I created one. For purposes of normalizing both assertions, I think it would be fair to discount the variables of logistics and long-term strategic intelligence (as opposed to tactical battlefield intelligence).

Also, while our navy is vast, I don't see it patrolling both coasts effectively, and also preventing troop movements through that vast Canadian landspace and South America.

All this being said, I think it would be an interesting simulation. If I were on Team "Rest of the World", I would probably start with the Canadians and South Americans doing the initial engagements to get the US concentrated on them (where the Navy would not be able to offer any support whatsoever), and use the time to mobilize the rest of the world's military. Just a thought ...

EDIT: Just read the following tongue-in-cheek article, which does bear much of what you guys had said (http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-...-united-states). I'll admit that it would be a very difficult proposition for the rest of the world to conquer the US. However, if the sole purpose of the rest of the world was just to destroy the US military (as opposed to occupying cities, etc.), I would still assert that it wouldn't be quite as difficult as postulated by the article.

EDIT #2: I think the rest of the world would have to deal with the US Navy somehow someway. I submit that the rest of the world's navy wouldn't stand a chance, so it would have to be done by planes carrying anti-ship missiles. Here I would think that the rest of the world would have sufficient planes, sent wave after wave from shore, even if it were enough fuel for a one-way trip, to both (i) deliver enough anti-ship missiles to overwhelm a carrier group's defenses, and (ii) sufficiently engage a carrier's long-range fighters so as to cover those planes with the anti-ship missiles.

EDIT #3: Here's an interesting story about the potential for Russian or Chinese submarines. Not sure how successful one or more could breach a carrier group's own submarine net, but it only takes one. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/f281fbc518fd

[amanda hor$t]

nobody will outright declare war on america or invade (in the traditional sense). that's what yakuza, mexican mafia, and the kkk are for. you think america can't be invaded? they're already here... in the military, in our cities, even in government positions.

again, bankruptcy and infighting. apparently whilst perusing jane's you guys missed the budget battle. and guess what, the next deadline is only 3 months away. how many of those military units will remain operational (including supply lines) if the treasury starts bouncing checks? how about a mexican-american president that legislates a silent war through executive orders?

anyway.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by schoy

Rather than quoting all of the above, note that I was responding to the assertion that in a conventional war between the US and the rest of the world would be coinflip (50/50 proposition). While I admire the US's military capability (bit of a hobby of mine), I cannot see how, if the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD (Chinese, Russians, Israelis, N. and S. Koreans, all of Western Europe, etc.) decided to unite against the US and was determined to wipe the US military off the map, they could not do so.

Also, note that the assertion I was responding to itself did not hypothesize how that engagement would take place, so I created one. For purposes of normalizing both assertions, I think it would be fair to discount the variables of logistics and long-term strategic intelligence (as opposed to tactical battlefield intelligence).

Also, while our navy is vast, I don't see it patrolling both coasts effectively, and also preventing troop movements through that vast Canadian landspace and South America.

All this being said, I think it would be an interesting simulation. If I were on Team "Rest of the World", I would probably start with the Canadians and South Americans doing the initial engagements to get the US concentrated on them (where the Navy would not be able to offer any support whatsoever), and use the time to mobilize the rest of the world's military. Just a thought ...

EDIT: Just read the following tongue-in-cheek article, which does bear much of what you guys had said (http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-...-united-states). I'll admit that it would be a very difficult proposition for the rest of the world to conquer the US. However, if the sole purpose of the rest of the world was just to destroy the US military (as opposed to occupying cities, etc.), I would still assert that it wouldn't be quite as difficult as postulated by the article.

EDIT #2: I think the rest of the world would have to deal with the US Navy somehow someway. I submit that the rest of the world's navy wouldn't stand a chance, so it would have to be done by planes carrying anti-ship missiles. Here I would think that the rest of the world would have sufficient planes, sent wave after wave from shore, even if it were enough fuel for a one-way trip, to both (i) deliver enough anti-ship missiles to overwhelm a carrier group's defenses, and (ii) sufficiently engage a carrier's long-range fighters so as to cover those planes with the anti-ship missiles.

EDIT #3: Here's an interesting story about the potential for Russian or Chinese submarines. Not sure how successful one or more could breach a carrier group's own submarine net, but it only takes one. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/f281fbc518fd

No offense to the Canucks, but i don't think you could ever in a million years convince the Canadian military to lead the global attack on the US.

South America... The Panama Canal is a pretty small choke point to bring millions of troops through. Some would call it a fatal funnel of sorts.

Planes with anti-ship missiles will be picked up by radar and intercepted by the carrier's air wing. In addition, the USAF will have UAVs patrolling the skies. Should some missiles get launched on target, all of the ships in the battle group have automated counter measures to help protect them against such threats.

Even if the rest of the worlds planes chose to go on a Doolittle type mission to launch their anti-ship missile and the succeed; they would have no more air force due to having to ditch their planes. This of course leaves the USAF the ability to pick and choose which ship carrying thousands of troops they want to destroy without contention.

Like you i find it an interesting simulation. The US probably some some black world weapon none of us has even dreamt of. lol

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

No offense to the Canucks, but i don't think you could ever in a million years convince the Canadian military to lead the global attack on the US.

South America... The Panama Canal is a pretty small choke point to bring millions of troops through. Some would call it a fatal funnel of sorts.

Planes with anti-ship missiles will be picked up by radar and intercepted by the carrier's air wing. In addition, the USAF will have UAVs patrolling the skies. Should some missiles get launched on target, all of the ships in the battle group have automated counter measures to help protect them against such threats.

Even if the rest of the worlds planes chose to go on a Doolittle type mission to launch their anti-ship missile and the succeed; they would have no more air force due to having to ditch their planes. This of course leaves the USAF the ability to pick and choose which ship carrying thousands of troops they want to destroy without contention.

Like you i find it an interesting simulation. The US probably some some black world weapon none of us has even dreamt of. lol

good logic, though i think the real focus of a modern conversation of military prowess should be who has the best spies and intelligence gathering. soon everything will be done with unmanned drones and it'll be a game or warcraft.

and what about the mirvs?

[Templar]

Successful troll is successful... Got a bunch of people with little to no real life experience to armchair quarterback the US military.

Carry on.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Templar

Successful troll is successful... Got a bunch of people with little to no real life experience to armchair quarterback the US military.

Carry on.

Templar, what are you talking about?
Didn't you know playing a 20yr old computer game gives you instantly transferable knowledge on the most powerfuly man-made force in the universe?
[trying to keep a straight face]

[Billup]

Originally Posted by Templar

Successful troll is successful... Got a bunch of people with little to no real life experience to armchair quarterback the US military.

Carry on.

I've been playing Counter-Strike since 1997 on Windows ME, don't tell me that I have no real life experience. War is like this, you go out and run through buildings, shoot people, if you die, you respawn once the round is over with the rest of your team....

In reality though, I do think we have one of the most efficiently trained forces in the world. If we didn't, I'm pretty sure there are a number of countries that aren't fond of Americans, and wouldn't mind if we were around or not. Like its been said already, we have decades upon decades of research and advancements that allows us to be where we are. However, I do feel what issues we handle and what we don't with our forces is a whole different story.

[Maestro]

Our US Military maybe the best using various metrics and measures, however, it had an achilles’ heel, it is called the US government and political correctness. We have all seen it in the past wars are not neat and orderly there is always collateral damage and when those situations happen our government runs the other way. If you're fighting someone who has nothings to loose it is hard to win when your government wants to run away when something bad happens. This alone I believe has harmed our military and cost lives.

Simple point our solders can not fire unless fired upon even if the enemy is staring them in the face pointing a gun at them. They can no engage a target without going up the chain of command. Today they use more smart weapons, they work as long as you know who is your enemy and who is not. I know those are not 100% true, but close enough.