|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Imperator Jora'h
   |
Posted - 2007.11.25 02:22:00 -
[1]
Serious response to the OP I would say man-for-man the Israeli military is probably the best.
Overall though the US has the best overall military. Israelis may be better per person but they are far fewer, supplied by the US (mostly not self armed) and no blue water navy.
The Brits have a fine navy and 1-1 probably equivalent to the US navy but the US navy is FAR larger with better equipment overall (not that the Brits have bad equipment).
Really no one, not even the Russians, have a navy to compare to the US.
Air force wise Israelis are arguably better but the US has such fantastic support in the guise of AWACS and such they win overall...if just numbers. (Then add in stealth aricraft).
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 15:22:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: Dave White
Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!
You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult.
I've talked to some special forces types and the opinion among them is there is no "better" among that group of people (when they are being honest and not biased to their own side). When it comes to SAS or SEALS or Spetsnaz or Sayeret Golani or the 108th Korps Commando Troepen they are all about the same in terms of badassery. The guys I talked to basically said it was near impossible to reliably argue who is "better" as the difference would come down to something like who had a better night's sleep. These guys are all trained to the Nth degree and are mean customers.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 16:17:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Der Komissar
Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana 
"3000km forest that way"
IIRC the French Foreign Legion is NOT a special forces unit and is generally a haven for criminals avoiding jail.
Not the sort I would look to for reliable advice in special forces units.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 16:20:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lady Centrina
Clarifying point: The media is distorting the efforts of the American forces in Iraq. The media reports that X number of US troops were killed in a day or month, but do you notice that they never mention how many insurgents were killed? The US has lost approx 4,000 troops since 2003, well over 150,000 Iraqi's and foreign insurgents have been killed during that same time frame, so you tell me, who is winning the war?
Who's winning the war? Easy...Iran.
You can win the battles but lose the war. Look at Vietnam...the US won in almost every number you want to point to and by a big margin. Still lost overall.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 16:30:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 25/11/2007 16:31:46
Originally by: Valan
The French battled constantly despite being overrun as did many Europeans. Their forces were still in disarray after being in debt from the Great War. The Russians defeated a large portion of the German army. Great Britain broke the back of the Luftwaffe and removed the Germans from Africa.
The US did the last minute cavalry thing in Europe to take a great big chunk of the German technology they knew about from defecting scientists and they didn't want the Russians getting it all. Where do you think the final piece of the jigsaw came from for those first nukes?
Last minute cavalry? Huh? I seem to recall the Brits and Americans being the largest contingent of the D-Day invasion and worked to push the Germans all the way back to Berlin. Not to mention the US running all over North Africa and then Italy prior to that. Not like the Allies were 20 miles from Berlin and THEN the US came in.
As for nukes Germany provided nothing towards their development by providing some missing piece. The Manhattan Project was a HUGE undertaking (I think it remains the largest single cost for any scientific project ever). The Germans surrendered in early May, the first nuke was tested in mid-July. In fact, had Germany not surrendered I believe the intention was to drop the first nukes on Germany.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 05:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Cipher7
No, the French definitely are not cowards.
I find alot of their cultural aspects bizarre.
Maybe not cowards but two words: Vichy Regime
Nuff said.
Let's look at the OP this way:
Air Force: United States (Israel has arguably better pilots but they fly American made planes and are fewer and American pilots are quite good just the same)
Army: 1-to-1 hard to say. British, American, German and Israeli troops are all highly trained and well equipped and motivated. Chinese and Russians have numbers and quantity does have a quality all its own (Stalin). Nod to the Finnish here as I think they are all born snipers.
Navy: Bar none the United States wins here. 1-to-1 the British would hold their own fine but the US navy is as professional as they come and by far the largest in the world by a long shot (unless you count a lot of rusting Russian ships).
Spec Ops: Hard to say. SAS, SEALS and so on from various countries are all bad ass and at the top of their game. I might give a nod here to Israeli spec ops since I think they get more actual field experience but I am not sure since so much of what they all doo is secret.
Leaders: Israel probably. Not up on their current generals but the ones they had were ace. Most western countries and Russia will have very sharp generals (General Norman Schwarzkopf may not have looked it but he was quite literally a brilliant man bodering on genius). Hard to call without actually having them face off and see who wins.
Logistics: United States hands down. Almost no other country in the world can project power much beyond their borders. Even the British had trouble dealing with the Falklands. For all China's size they are nowhere near being able to pull off a sealift to invade Taiwan.
Put it all together and the US definitely has the most potent military in the world today without question. That does not mean a platoon of Challenger tanks couldn't wax a platoon of Abrams tanks but at the end of the day the US will likely hold the field.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Valan
We're still paying the USA back for World War II, you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. Thats why we're in Iraq, our troops are helping pay the old debt.
Err? no I don't think so!
UK finished paying their war debts off already 
IIRC the UK made its last payment to the US in December, 2006. That may seem like a long time to be paying the US but the Brits got awesome terms. They repaid something like $0.10 per actual dollar the US gave. Not a bad deal at all. The Brits could have paid off sooner but why would they? The money was far more useful in their banks than anything they may have saved paying off early.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:49:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Originally by: Kala Veijo
Although these stats are old I still find them pretty amusing.
That is a great meme
I think I mentioned it earlier but it bears repeating that I think Finns are all natural born snipers. Gave the Russians fits.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 19:26:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Originally by: James Swindle
Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49
I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.
They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers.
"Friendly" fire has gotten people in all wars from any country. Just happens (sadly).
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 19:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
There is nothing friendly about dropping a couple 500lb bombs on a training exercise. Your pilots never called for confirmation of enemy activity, they just decided that the platoon of Canadian soldiers on the ground were a target of opportunity. This is what happens when people think war is a game, but moreover, when national fervor prevents rational thought.
You know as well as I do that "friendly" in this case means you are shooting people who are considered your friends and not that bombing them is a friendly act.
As for the circumstances if the pilot(s) were just some yahoos that ignored procedure then they will likely be thrown in jail...certainly a dishonorable discharge at the least (that is pretty bad thing here).
These things happen in war and we both know it. I bet if you looked in to it you'd find ample examples of British soldiers killing other British soldiers accidentally. These things happen when have tens of thousands of people with guns running about.
And as mentioned above I am willing to bet with better communication and procedures these days friendly fire incidents are likely fewer than they have been in previous wars.
This is not to say we should be "ok" with such things happening but we should not be surprised.
|
|
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 02:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Yarrick
Edited by: Yarrick on 27/11/2007 01:46:04
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
EDIT: Seems the Brits have done this too --
- British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.
- British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke
ffs guys, can we please not use the names of dead soldiers too prove an e-peen argument on an internet spaceships forum.
F-ucking disgraceful!!!
???
And if I didn't include detail people would call BS on it.
No disrespect was intended and their names were part of a Wiki page so hardly a secret.
Besides, I do not see how including names disrespects them at all. Bet if you look around the times this occurred you would see their names listed in numerous newspapers and mentioned on TV and the internet. Googling just one of the names produced over 320,000 hits.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 15:07:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Thorliaron
yeah in Korea you lost 95% of the country then took back 95% of the country to then only end up with half the country - sounds like a total victory to me. Oh and Vietnam wa a real victory aswell right?. Air wars?..what your planes vs rust buckets and thin air?
Korea so far seems like a draw to me although technically the war is still on (just in a VERY long ceasefire right now). As for planes in Korea the Soviet Migs did very well versus the US planes. While they never achieved better kill ratios than the US did they got them close for awhile then eventually the US pulled ahead on that count.
As for "winning" I guess you need to define that better. If all it means is at the end of the day you hold the field then yeah...Korea is a draw and the US lost in Vietnam. However, most Western countries would include the cost needed to achieve that. What good is a Pyrrhic victory?
In Korea the Chinese showed what numbers could do. By any measure the US was devastating. Early on when the Chinese entered the conflict the US sustained the longest artillery barrage in history and positively whomped the oncoming Chinese mercilessly. But they kept coming. In the West no country or commander would feed his troops into such a meat grinder but the Chinese have little concern for the individual and would shovel them wholesale into the battle. Stalin did the same in WWII. They have the meatshields to spare. Yeah it worked but are those costs YOU would be ok with?
In the end in all these conflicts on paper the US did better. MUCH more enemy dead. More planes shot down and so on than what we lost. This clearly fails when the leaders of the enemy do not care for their soldiers or the civilians and only care to maintain power no matter the cost. In short to beat them you need to embark on a course of genocide as nothing short of that will stop those leaders. They'll sacrifice the last of their citizens in such cases. If you are unwilling to embark on genocide not sure how you could ever expect to win against them.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 22:05:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 27/11/2007 22:05:39
Originally by: Rialtor
China would steam roll anyone 1v1, that includes the US. The country with the better economy, production, morale, and mindset will win. Wars are fought till a people are broken. I think Americans will be easier to break.
Not true. If it were true why hasn't China taken Taiwan (which to this day they claim as theirs and regularly threaten Taiwan)? Simple answer is that they absolutely cannot.
1v1 I'll take any Western soldier over a Chinese conscript any day. All China has going for their army is numbers. That certainly counts especially with as many as they have but China cannot project power much beyond their immediate borders. Taiwan is all of 100 miles or so from China and the Chinese are quite incapable of moving crossing that in sufficient force to nail Taiwan. How do you suppose they'd make it across the entire Pacific to the US in the face of the world's premier blue water fleet?
Oh, and if an enemy force actually invaded the US I think you'd see US resolve stiffen considerably and have all they backbone you want to kick them out. Not only that this is a nation of guns. Our citizens are rather well armed. An enemy force would not only fight against our military but every yahoo with an arsenal in their basement.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 22:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Arianhod
I see China is building up it's Navy. What happens if it DOES actualy land forces in Taiwan, do we get another Cyprus or does WW3 bread out due to UN protection?
They'd probably never get forces to Taiwan. They'd need to own the air first and I seriously doubt they could do that. Especially with the likes of the F22 Raptor in service. There are not many of them but in war games so far they simply own the sky versus anything thrown at them.
IF China got ownership of the air they'd then need to own the sea and again versus US attack subs and guided missile cruisers not very likely.
IF China owned the sea and the air they'd need to suppress Taiwan coastal defenses. A soldier with an shoulder fired anti-tank weapon can screw-up most landing craft.
In short it would be a massive effort. Just look at what the Allies threw at the D-Day invasion and that was before missiles and GPS targeted artillery and such.
And yeah...good chance at starting WW3 if China tried.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 04:02:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 28/11/2007 04:07:11
Originally by: Captain Hudson
Can a Eurofighter not catch it?
It's not a question of catching it (well it is partly). It is a question of being able to shoot it.
Quote:
To confront the F-22-led ôBlue Airö collection, the joint force mustered its best ôRed Airö threatùfront-line F-15s, F-16s, and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. The F-22Æs team blitzed the opposition with a favorable 241-to-two kill ratio. WhatÆs more, the two lost aircraft were F-15Cs, not F-22s. The Raptors came through the engagements untouched.
In Red Flags, Bergeson said, ôyou have a great day if you lose only 10 percent of your forces.ö The massively lopsided victory for the stealthy F-22-led force was unprecedented.
ôThey [the Red Air adversaries] couldnÆt see us,ö Tolliver said. This was true even when the opponents were assisted by AWACS. ôAnd thatÆs what makes the F-22 special,ö Tolliver went on. ôIÆm out there and I have weapons like an F-15C or an F-16, but ... IÆm basically invisible to the other guyÆs radar.ö
The 241-to-two record was amassed over two weeks of air engagements. Tolliver noted that, in such battles, Red Air units were allowed to regenerate and return to the fight, but lost Blue forces could not. Even with such handicaps, in the largest single engagement, F-22-led forces claimed 83 enemies to one loss, after facing down an opposing force that had generated or regenerated 103 adversary fighters.
SOURCE: http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207raptor.asp
Quote:
OK, so it was a simulated war game. But F-22 fighters from Langley AFB's 27th Fighter Squadron, participating in Exercise Northern Edge, 2006, have tackled the simulated Sukhois thrown at them with record- breaking aplomb -- final result, 108 "Sukhois" killed. Zero Raptors.
This included situations wherein the Raptors were outnumbered up to eight to one by the simulated Russian front-line Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft.
In similar situations, F-15 and F-18E fighters also beat the Sukhois, statistically -- but by a 2:1 ratio. The score looks more like a pro soccer game than the Raptors' basketball score -- racked up between an NCAA powerhouse and a high school in pygmy country.
At Oshkosh, the entire aeronautical community was poleaxed by the otherworldly maneuverability of the F-22s... we've never before seen a whole line of professional photographers too busy staring to shoot.
SOURCE: http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/August/08102006/08102006-09.htm
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 14:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Arianhod
Edited by: Arianhod on 28/11/2007 13:52:41
If it comes to it my money is on western powers discarding the image of "we are civlised" and fighting as dirty as the enemy. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, look at Churchill planning out bombing raids to elminate German cities producing ammunition and equipment.
WWII was a war of attrition which gets ugly. Oddly, despite massive bombing, Germany increased production right to the end. And the bombing of cities was not only in Europe. The US did it too versus the Japanese. The firebombing of Tokyo actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
And FWIW dropping the Atom bombs on Japan almost certainly saved lives overall. Perverse I know but true. Crazy as it sounds it is probably the best result the Japanese could have had at that point.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 20:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Originally by: Krows
So, Derovius, are you going to actually challenge what I say or will you just use popular internet phrases in an attempt to make me look stupid? Sorry, I was in a rush but I felt what I had written would still merit some argument out of you. So I'll say it again, the F-22 is not only a stand-off engagement fighter, but an amazing dog fighter as well. Oh yeah, stop playing Command and Conquer Generals for an accurate representation of the Chinese military. Their air force is far more considerable than a mass of cold war era fighter planes (which again by the way would never catch an F-22).
I ignored your reply because you gave no references for me to verify your argument against. Your reply would have had as much weight as it does now if you stated, "No! Your wrong because the sky is purple!". Of course, the difference being that the sky is not purple, and I can verify this by looking out the window. Your statements may be true, or they may be false, and until you give me a reputable source to read up on the subject, I will reiterate my previous statement;
LEARN TO POST NOOB! 
I gave you links to articles on the F22 and how it positively owns anything in the sky (including front line US fighter jets with ace crews out numbering the F22s and AWACS support plus being able to "regenerate" back into the fight...F22's owned them).
Care to respond?
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 20:55:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 28/11/2007 20:56:40
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
EDIT: Upon first glance, the AFA is cited as, "The Air Force Association (AFA) is an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation.". This smecks of government "assisted" information, and appears to be highly skewed towards how "remarkable" American aerospace technology is. A good indicator of the impartiality of ones source is to find a mixed bag of good and bad reviews of technology. I see nothing but quote unquote high praise in these articles.
And of course, the second source is a military homepage, and obviously not impartial in its representation.
Find me a EU, or 3rd party resource that doesn't have a "Donate to our veterans" link on the sidebar. I'm sure I could find a Chinese website singing the praises their primary fighter jet and how it would destroy anything on the field of combat.
Real truth stems from the opinions of those who have nothing to gain by praising a technologym or idea.
I should have expected this dodge.
I provided sources. If you want to debunk them find your own. While those cites may be flag wavers who never say a bad thing about the US do you have ANY reason to dispute the results of those mock engagements? I think the results of those are a matter of record and clearly the F-22's performed scarily well versus top notch aviators in stellar planes. This was not one guy in a Cessna versus fighter jets. They even stacked the deck against the F-22s and I assure you though their opponents were American pilots those pilots did their level best to win.
Google the F22 all you like...you see report after report like this. There are only some 100 in the US arsenal currently (I think) but given their abilities and numbers only likely to grow what answer do you suppose others really have to them?
Would be fascinating to see a war game between two squads of F22s and see what they do.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 01:50:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Captain Hudson
Edited by: Captain Hudson on 29/11/2007 01:44:56
During a more recent excercise for the Eurofighter Typhoon aginst F15's and F-16's of the USAF the Eurofighter won 9-2.
I believe it. Eurofighter is hot.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 02:34:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Sister Impotentata
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Captain Hudson
Edited by: Captain Hudson on 29/11/2007 01:44:56
During a more recent excercise for the Eurofighter Typhoon aginst F15's and F-16's of the USAF the Eurofighter won 9-2.
I believe it. Eurofighter is hot.
It is fail. All the sexxy of an F-5/F-20, with all the ugly-foolishness of any Saab product. Engineering fail. Bling win.
Everything I have seen puts the Eurofighter in the same league as the F-22 although the F-22 I think is still the better plane overall.
- Both are stealthy but the F-22 is more stealthy (Eurofighter was not made to be a stealth aircraft although some thought was given to it...F-22 was made to be stealthy from the get-go).
- Both are hugely agile...tough call here.
- Both have supercruise but the F-22 is much faster in supercruise.
- F-22 uses AESA radar compared to Pulse Doppler on the Eurofighter. I think the Eurofighter is to get AESA but today the F-22 wins big here.
- F-22 can perform a ground attack role as well as air superiority. Eurofighter is in the process of getting some ground attack ability but cannot at this point.
I'd rather be in a Eurofighter than an F-16 or F-15 or F-18.
I'd rather be in an F-22 than a Eurofighter.
|
|
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:45:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Kirjava
It is a multi role. From looking on Wikipedia there are different vairiants for each role, bomber configurations and dogfighter configurations ect.
I have not looked up the Wiki article but then Wiki is, well, Wiki and while cool not necessarily authoritative.
Anyway, my thoughts on the Eurofighter not having a ground attack ability (currently) came from the following:
Quote:
Eurofighter Signs Typhoon Ground Attack Upgrade Deal
Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:05pm BST
LONDON (Reuters) - The Eurofighter consortium has signed an upgrade contract valued at about 830 million pounds ($1.63 billion) to enable Typhoon fighters jets to attack ground targets, Britain's Ministry of Defense said on Friday.
SOURCE: http://uk.reuters.com/article/basicIndustries/idUKL3020081020070330
Seems an odd thing to do if the Eurofighter already has a ground attack mode. Maybe they finished the upgrade already but that would seem unusually fast for this sort of thing.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 02:43:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 01/12/2007 02:44:04
Originally by: Thorliaron
Because we did not really have a issue with them, they dont say they want to wipe Europe of the map but they do say that about America and Isreal. Even the French where getting a nice oil deal off Sadam.
Well...that is only because the US is the primary stumbling block to Islam. A position the rest of Europe is happy to let it do as then they do not have to spend money on propping up fireblocks like Israel.
If the US decided to become isolationist and just sit between two large ponds and let the rest of the world go its own way you can bet your bottom that the Middle East would become a European problem. Last time America went all isolationist we got WWII. UK and France appeased Germany FAR too much as Adolf did his thing. By the time they realized their mistake it was far too late.
And frankly the French will sell anything to anybody. There are a number of times where the US is trying to stop tech transfers (e.g. nuclear stuff or modern planes) where France happily walks in and build them a reactor or sells them fighters.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 05:48:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 01/12/2007 05:53:14
Originally by: KoriBaka
Essentially terrorists will never accomplish much, they blew two buildings up killing 3000 or so people, sad maybe but more people die on the roads each year by a lot.
This boggles the mind. We were lucky the death toll was "only" about 3,000 people. There were over 20,000 people in the Towers when they were hit. Had it been later in the day there likely would have been more. The Towers were known to accommodate up to 50,000 people at times. In the 1993 bombing the terrorists goal was to topple one tower into the other dropping both and squishing a good number of other buildings in the process. They estimated up to 250,000 dead had that happened. And let's not forget they attacked the Pentagon and tried for (probably) the Capitol and add four jetliners to the mix.
How many people is enough for you to care? Car accidents are tragic and kill many people but they are accidents. If your neighbor tries to kill your family but only gets your dog should you just shrug it off? Next time he gets your cat and one of your kids but hey...many more kids die each year riding their bicycles. Ignore that?
As it is the attack on the towers killed more people than were killed in Pearl Harbor that got the US into WWII. At least the Japanese targeted a military installation. The terrorists went after civilians.
Just shrug it all off because they didn't "accomplish much"? Just what do they need to accomplish before you take notice?
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 06:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Hows about you start killing other Americans and I tell you when to stop?
Huh?
Not following you.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 00:34:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 10/12/2007 00:34:46
Originally by: Sylus Grymme
Although thanks to Clinton itÆs rather small for a country the size of the United States. Couple the size with the current state of mind of the American people (They are like a bad boyfriend: afraid to commit) and you have a recipe for disaster.
You are wrong to single out Clinton in this. The President is not a dictator able to do as he wills. Clinton had a conservative Congress and of course the Pentagon has a lot to say about it.
The US for a long time has had a "Two War" standard. Prior to 9/11 that standard was being strongly questioned not only by the Clinton White House but by the Bush White House as well. Donald Rumsfeld was knocking that idea down mere weeks before 9/11. See below:
Quote:
Donald H. Rumsfeld, testifying in mid-2001 about the nationÆs ôtwo-warö strategy, observed that it reflected an ôobsessionö with ôa few dangersö that ômay be familiar rather than likely.ö His criticism was a case of unfortunate timing.
<snip>
Indeed, the two-war concept is again under attack, as was made plain in a July 5 leak to the New York Times. ôThe PentagonÆs most senior planners,ö stated the Times, now believe that they want ôto shape the military to mount one conventional campaignö while ôdevoting more resources to defending American territory and anti¡terrorism efforts.ö
The well-informed trade publication Inside the Pentagon noted that the concept has been unofficially dubbed ô1-1-1,ö denoting homeland defense, the war on terror, and conventional war. The shift, if it actually occurs, could lead to the diversion of money from ôtraditional warfare areasö such as regional conflicts, said ITP.
SOURCE: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2005/0805edit.asp
And that in 2005 under the Bush administration with a fully conservative controlled congress and coming from the Pentagon.
So who is it again that is shrinking the military even while engaged in a conflict?
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 07:14:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ademaro Imre
The First Bush looked for a cut in 3 billion. President Clinton 1st year pushed 14 billion.
You overstate the issues as if Clinton was dismantling the military while Bush (either one) were intent on growing it.
You have to remember Bush and Clinton were seeking the so-called "Peace Dividend" the public expected with the collapse of the Soviet Union. And a $14 billion cut in the US military is what? Around 2-3%? Hardly dramatic.
As for democrats being unable to remove troops from Iraq is wholly unfair in comparison to Clinton stopping spending bills. Apples and oranges and a thread in its own right (short version as Commander-in-Chief Bush can send the military where he will...to force them back Congress would have to cut funding and doing that is political suicide as it would be portrayed that congress is refusing money to adequately protect the troops).
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 02:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ortu Konsinni
As a Swiss citizen myself, I can't believe some people suggested the Swiss army.
The Swiss army is an elaborate and very expensive joke, and the blind fanaticism that a lot of Swiss people have toward their army remains a mystery to me.
<snip>
On the other hand, they'd surely give a hard time to someone invading Switzerland because of all the fortifications, underground fortresses (especially in the alps), highways that convert to emergency plane runways, air bases hidden inside mountains, etc., so they're probably well adapted to defensive warfare, but they're still highly inexperienced no matter how you look at it.
I think you answered yourself. My understanding was that the Swiss probably could not stop a serious invasion but they would make the invader pay an unacceptably high price for what they get (so they just leave the Swiss alone). Sounds like a good plan to me.
The Swiss may lack experience but they know their mountains and have prepared defenses in advance (IIRC they still keep horses too which almost no army does these days but horses are great in mountains where Jeeps and such cannot go).
|
|
|
| |
|