[Simsims]

hmm, vietnam, korean war.

you know, war isn't about standing face to face and "fight it out like a man". whoever wins, wins.

guerilla warfare is a proper form of war - it is a proper strategy to follow when your forces are smaller and not as well equipped.

The art of war ladies and gentlemen

[Simsims]

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.

lol


you should read up on the amount of bombs dropped in Vietnam and the # of new bombs invented to inflict maximum personnel damage (without killing them), because:
1 dead == 1 dead
1 wounded == 2 or more carrying him + 1 wounded

the infamous pineapple and grapefruit cluster bombs

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by Simsims

hmm, vietnam, korean war.

guerilla warfare is a proper form of war - it is a proper strategy to follow when your forces are smaller and not as well equipped.

america wouldn't have beaten england without it.

gotta love the idiots with nothing to contribute aside from empty insults. hopefully they are just being idiots online and actually have something going on irl.

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by Simsims

lol


you should read up on the amount of bombs dropped in Vietnam and the # of new bombs invented to inflict maximum personnel damage (without killing them), because:
1 dead == 1 dead
1 wounded == 2 or more carrying him + 1 wounded

the infamous pineapple and grapefruit cluster bombs

And why is this relevant? When making a strike, you do so without damaging the civilian population. Hence the reason why I mentioned you can't just bomb the crap out of a country and kill everyone.

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by Simsims

hmm, vietnam, korean war.

you know, war isn't about standing face to face and "fight it out like a man". whoever wins, wins.

guerilla warfare is a proper form of war - it is a proper strategy to follow when your forces are smaller and not as well equipped.

The art of war ladies and gentlemen

And that is where you went off topic. Guerilla warfare is a strategy for those who are severely outpowered by the enemy. It has nothing to do with comparing the power of military, which is the topic of this thread.

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

And that is where you went off topic. Guerilla warfare is a strategy for those who are severely outpowered by the enemy. It has nothing to do with comparing the power of military, which is the topic of this thread.

they cause damage, produce results, and win wars. hence are part of the power equation.

[Rookie84]

BTW, I was a Lieutenant in Republic of Korea Army and worked in ROK-US Combined Forces Command / United Nations Command. I do know what I am talking about. I participated in enough war games and exercises to have some good knowledge regarding military power and how the war is conducted.

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

BTW, I was a Lieutenant in Republic of Korea Army and worked in ROK-US Combined Forces Command / United Nations Command. I do know what I am talking about. I participated in enough war games and exercises to have some good knowledge regarding military power and how the war is conducted.

good to know, and i'm ex-cia (check your sources)

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by bosster hymen

they cause damage, produce results, and win wars. hence are part of the power equation.

And we are comparing power of military here. Anyone can resort to guerilla warfare including terrorists and civilians, which are not part of military.

Guerilla warfare is the last resort of those who are fighting on their own soil and do not have the means to overpower the enemy.

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by bosster hymen

good to know, and i'm ex-cia (check your sources)

I hope you are joking here because I would be very disappointed if an ex-CIA made such unprofessional remarks without valid sources.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Rookie84

BTW, I was a Lieutenant in Republic of Korea Army and worked in ROK-US Combined Forces Command / United Nations Command. I do know what I am talking about. I participated in enough war games and exercises to have some good knowledge regarding military power and how the war is conducted.

You are outmatched, man.
Hymen (formally known as "Balls") is a starship commander of the Urqan gallatic fleet.. he has 1000 vessels with enough firepower to destroy the universe ten times over

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by grimlock

You are outmatched, man.
Hymen (formally known as "Balls") is a starship commander of the Urqan gallatic fleet.. he has 1000 vessels with enough firepower to destroy the universe ten times over

That must be it. I surrender!

[Templar]

Originally Posted by bosster hymen

america wouldn't have beaten england without it.

gotta love the idiots with nothing to contribute aside from empty insults. hopefully they are just being idiots online and actually have something going on irl.

Sorry, but you're so full of shit it's spilling out over the interwebs...

[GAaaAR]

To answer the question, US has the strongest military in the world. However, being the strongest doesn't mean you can win every war or would it make sense to. As it stands and the way wars are fought now, it might only be beneficial to fight a country with significantly less meanwhile also getting funds and assistance from allies. IE: Afghan and Iraq (look how high the cost is even for those wars). So strongest military doesnt mean you can attack a country with a strong enough military deterrent Ie: Russia, China and etc.

The title of being the strongest just doesn't carry as far as it use to anymore with globalization and how major countries all need to depend on each other one way or another, combined with weapons of mass destruction available from both sides. Russia isn't afraid of the US just because they have a stronger military, cause they know the US wouldn't risk a fight.

[kmarei]

US Military
Most powerful military in the world
Powered by Chinese money

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by GAaaAR

To answer the question, US has the strongest military in the world. However, being the strongest doesn't mean you can win every war or would it make sense to. As it stands and the way wars are fought now, it might only be beneficial to fight a country with significantly less meanwhile also getting funds and assistance from allies. IE: Afghan and Iraq (look how high the cost is even for those wars). So strongest military doesnt mean you can attack a country with a strong enough military deterrent Ie: Russia, China and etc.

The title of being the strongest just doesn't carry as far as it use to anymore with globalization and how major countries all need to depend on each other one way or another, combined with weapons of mass destruction available from both sides. Russia isn't afraid of the US just because they have a stronger military, cause they know the US wouldn't risk a fight.

True. Also, with US military stretched all around the world, it is hard to concentrate a huge amount of power into solving other nation's conflicts even though it does serve the interest of the US. Plus there is money issue, as a war is a huge financial burden. Besides, teaming up with other nations always makes things look more legitimate.

[adobeee]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

The U.S. military is probably the "most powerful" insomuch as the U.S. is the wealthiest nation on earth (this is an objective fact) and thus the U.S. military isn't as limited by resources (i.e. money) as other, less prosperous nations.

Other than that it's pretty hard to quantify something like how "well trained" one nation's military is compared to another nation's military.

The U.S. probably has the most advanced, up-to-date technology but I'm not really sure, and I also don't know how technologically advanced other nations are either.

U.S. may be the "wealthiest" nation, but the country is levered into oblivion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Go...t_debt_gdp.jpg

If the country doesn't manage to pay down its principal debt and interest payments (with a large portion coming from China), the government would have to make some drastic cuts to various government and military agencies, potentially affecting both the perception and actual "strength" of our military.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by adobeee

U.S. may be the "wealthiest" nation, but the country is levered into oblivion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Go...t_debt_gdp.jpg

If the country doesn't manage to pay down its principal debt and interest payments (with a large portion coming from China), the government would have to make some drastic cuts to various government and military agencies, potentially affecting both the perception and actual "strength" of our military.

Well yeah as a function of GDP our debt is > 100% annually, but by wealth I meant overall net worth. The collective net worth of U.S. households is something like $60 trillion, and our total debt is what, something like $14 trillion?

So we're still comfortably positive but yeah I definitely agree with your concerns. I'd like to see some years with a surplus budget so we can start paying down our debt.

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You know, the all knowing insight of a BMW forum. That type of insight.

Lol

[amanda hor$t]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Well yeah as a function of GDP our debt is > 100% annually, but by wealth I meant overall net worth. The collective net worth of U.S. households is something like $60 trillion, and our total debt is what, something like $14 trillion?

unless the state plans to plunder the rich, the $60 trillion household worth doesn't seem that useful. one phone call and most of that can be moved in seconds. america's gdp is square with its debt, the problem is pork.

though interesting to note, the rothschild family is estimated to be worth at least $100 trillion. perhaps america will be for sale sometime soon.

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Well yeah as a function of GDP our debt is > 100% annually, but by wealth I meant overall net worth. The collective net worth of U.S. households is something like $60 trillion, and our total debt is what, something like $14 trillion?

So we're still comfortably positive but yeah I definitely agree with your concerns. I'd like to see some years with a surplus budget so we can start paying down our debt.

Household net worth does not make us positive! The communist government doesn't own all that net worth yet.... Yet. So just our earth is meaningless unless you tap into it and steal ... I mean tax/lawfully take people's assets to payoff corrupt reckless spending.