Army Chief of Staff Gen.: 'US military...will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten'

Haven`t seen anyone mention Desert Storm-Iraq had the 4`th largest army and we crushed them like a bug.Todays KNOWN military and assets would be hard pressed to fight a major power to a draw in a convential war.God help us all if they start using the stuff we have in space if the enemy has similar weapons.

a reply to: Ohanka

How about under area 51.if you think US less armed than before then I can say you're highly mistaken and have believed in the mainstream narrative I think both countries have been arming themselves to the teeth because they knew the cold war ended only to start a new phase or a new type of conflict we've seen both US and Russia have been waiting for this moment and developing new system and strategies from their conflicts and interventions ever since the end of the cold war.incase of a nuclear war number of soldiers tanks APCs jets or whatever won't matter it's about what's hidden in your arsenal.same goes to Russia we dont know what they got under their secret bases.China has always been unpredictable and as usual they are quiet so nobody knows how strong they are

a reply to: Ohanka

America did win the war in the pacific though. A greatly overlooked theatre imo.

You may claim you won the war in the Pacific but us Aussies were the first to stop the Japanese and turn them back . Mind you with a little help here and there .

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Without the US, WW2 would have been won by the allies, eventually......

Without Russia, most of the world would be speaking German/Japanese today.

edit to add... the US and UK invaded in 44...

The Germans were defeated in 43 at the Battle of Kursk, the second major defeat of Nazi Germany having come after Stalingrad.

For the Germans, the battle was the final strategic offensive that they were able to launch on the Eastern Front. Their extensive loss of men and tanks ensured that the victorious Soviet Red Army enjoyed the strategic initiative for the remainder of the war.

A guy I work with was talking about his basic last night and told me that now recruits have a stress card they can pull out and the DI can`t say anything to them the rest of the day.We are screwed if our military has got this @#ssified since I was in!Even The Air Force basic 25 years ago would break these wimpy ass punks who can`t take basic.God help us if Wimpy Political correctness isn`t thrown out of what once was a great military.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Without the US, WW2 would have been won by the allies, eventually......

Without Russia, most of the world would be speaking German/Japanese today.

edit to add... the US and UK invaded in 44...

The Germans were defeated in 43 at the Battle of Kursk, the second major defeat of Nazi Germany having come after Stalingrad.

For the Germans, the battle was the final strategic offensive that they were able to launch on the Eastern Front. Their extensive loss of men and tanks ensured that the victorious Soviet Red Army enjoyed the strategic initiative for the remainder of the war.

You're completely wrong about the Allies winning without the US. The US was supplying the allies from the get-go. The one and only reason that the US joined the hot war in the ET was that Hitler declared war on the US. (Another of Hitler's major blunders.) Would the allies have won without the US involvement?? No. WW2 in the Eastern Theatre was a war of attrition, the addition of an Eastern Front to Hitlers western front was Hitler's first major blunder.

Yes, Kursk was a back breaker for the Eastern front, as was the Battle of the Bulge for the Western front. Germany didn't have the supplies or production to carry on such an extensive and expensive war on two fronts. However, if the German Fuhrer was a bit smarter he would have allowed early on, his generals to perform tactical and strategic retreats in order to fight battles on and in situations which were more favorable to German offensive and defensive capabilities.

As far as the invasion goes...That was only the last step. Nazi Germany was already reeling under bombing attacks which cut off production and supply lines, not to mention that by the time the recruits were ages 15-19 with little or no battle experience.

You are certainly oversimplifying things sir.

However you still don't answer anything about the PT of WW2.

Its all talk, US has the goods, the tech, the man power, but against the old guerrilla warfare doesnt do much...

a reply to: ridgerunner

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Those 'wimpy ass punks' are the same kids who have been kicking down doors in some of the most fierce fighting for half a century. Just because the system is a bit stupid doesn't mean the soldiers are any less brave or capable than those before them.

The recruits would certainly handle harsher treatment, the training system just isn't built that way any more. They defiantly handle it on deployment.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, that is why they have a permanent seat at UN security council.

a reply to: PaddyInfLeft out some words and it sounds wrong,damn I did a Trump.What I actually was talking about are the kids who have to have their safe space.The ones who join are all to be commended,even if they wash out.Meant to convey our system is wussed out and they shouldn`t let it spread to the military

Battles are won or lost by the military, wars are won or lost by politicians.

The US military has a pretty good record of winning battles; US politicians have a less stellar record of losing wars. Vietnam is a good example. The military did good at what the military is good at. The politicians hosed that pooch. Because our reason for being there was flawed from the get-go. But the military did fine at military stuff.

a reply to: Profusion

Where is this Soldier Stationed , Fort Bravado ?

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Y'all are selling the good ol USA short;
Russia is formidable but...
Money in the trillions have disappeared into US black
Special Accsess Projects . Those projects don't see
the light of day until they are needed for a big war.
The Dark hats in the US MIC can sneak around land sea
air or space and vaporize things up in ways
that have not yet been contemplated by foes.

This argument is used frequently, but amounts to nothing more than hopeful conjecture. Kinda hard to hide such a massive and secret, technologically-advanced military force, don't you think so?

The most simplest of explanation, as evidenced by almost every critical article ever written on the USA Military-Industrial Complex, is that most of that funding is going right into corporate pockets, not some secret project that will help you win a war. You want to become a millionaire? Work your way into a desk job at the Pentagon.

This isn't 1812 any more. How, exactly, do you "win" a war in the modern era? There's no doubt that if the military were let of their leash they could dominate. But what does that actually look like?



Is that worth actually fighting for?

originally posted by: Ohanka
Incidentally many of Germany's military failures can be attributed to Hitler's stupidity and sheer incompetence as a military commander. Which is in stark contrast to this public perception as him as some great warlord.

It isn't entirely accurate to claim that Hitler was an incompetent military commander, considering that he had captured and controlled most of Western Europe through both military and political leadership.

What failed the Nazis was hubris, which is the same Achilles' Heel for any empire really. The Nazis fell too hard for their own propaganda and ended up underestimating the Soviets. The Nazis also overestimated their Western Allies, whom had backed Nazi Germany for quite some time as they used Fascist regimes in Europe as their proxies to wage war against the USSR.

Imperial Russia, and later the Soviet Union, had waged continuous war for decades and as such, developed some serious countermeasures over the years. The initial Nazi blitzkrieg to conquer strategic Soviet regions failed for a variety of reasons. The winter played a part, but the reason why the Nazis failed their objectives before the winter came down to logistics.

Most people don't know this, but when the Russians built their massive railroad networks, they included a key design feature: the tracks were a different width from the European standard. This was done intentionally to hold up any invasion into Russian from Europe, because trains were the key mode of logistical transport. So not only could the Nazis not move the optimal volume of logistics, but they had to consume much more in transport costs via motorized logistics.

Add to that the failure of the Nazis to capture and maintain supply lines to oil producing regions around the Caucasus/Caspian. Securing this fuel economy, along with other resource assets, was the primary reason as to why the Nazis made the decision to invade the USSR in the first place. However, the USSR maintained control over these assets which proved to their advantage in their victory on the Eastern Front- and was also the key disadvantage that held back the Warmacht for the rest of their war.

After the Soviets captured Berlin, they immediately rolled in next-generation military units like heavy MBTs to show the Western Allies that they were prepared to continue fighting, in order to force a cessation to hostilities in Europe.

On the Pacific Front, the Americans had already worn down the Japanese war economy. Japanese territory that was previously captured was now falling, and war production, social welfare and morale were collapsing for the Japanese. The Soviets rallied veteran armies to the East and liberated Manchuria. They had an invasion force primed to capture the Japanese homeland, as they said they would do at Yalta. And then the Americans forced Japanese capitulation to them with their deployment of nuclear weapons. This was no coincidence, and the Soviets churned out their own nuclear weapons program soon afterward to stave off American aggression.

As for modern times? The USA maintains a global economic empire backed by its military. The American Republic is far past its climax and its military economy is inflated to crushing levels. The Cold War-era tenants for global hegemony require control over Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. The USA pushed their sphere of dominance further into Europe, while being simultaneously challenged by Russia and China elsewhere. South America, historically a strategic resource frontier for the USA, has been heading towards emancipation from such colonial ties.

The American government is stocked full of chickenhawks and neoconservatives that feverently believe in economic expansion through military conquest. They are easily predictable and non-aligned blocs have prepared for inevitable defensive military confrontation. The USA has to maintain logistics throughout non-aligned regions in order to sustain its military in a conventional world war. The USA has so many enemies that it would never be able to do so without substantial losses, and it will have to sacrifice control over some regions in order to agglomerate control in others. Even in a war with another military power, other enemies of the USA will take opportunistic action when they can, and neoliberal economic ties will ensure all out war involving allies for the sake of dealing with their own economies and social unrest.

Another key aspect that will define the decline of American morale will be in the loss of all their fancy war toys. Hardware like AWACS planes, super carriers, and 5th gen fighters have been promoted as symbols of the USA (in reality a PR campaign to justify funding), and rival militaries have developed weapon systems to specifically target this hardware. A loss of a single carrier or a Raptor would cause a lot of social unrest and economic criticism inside of the USA. War in general would already be a contentious issue inside of the USA, and you can bet that Russians, Chinese or any other military rival have vastly superior morale in regards to overt conflict with the Americans.

In summary, the USA would not be able to maintain a prolonged military effort against another superpower. As time goes on and the demands of economic growth expand, the USA will end up in such a war anyway.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Very, very well spoken sir. I agree with your major points, though I disagree with your assessment of Hitler's prowess as a military leader. The reason being, Hitlers military leadership "abilities" are judged by how he conquered. But conquering a land with an overwhelming force in an overwhelming style (the Blitzkrieg) doesn't begin to asses his strengths or military genius.

A true test of military ability is the ability to defend, secure supply lines and maintain a solid ability to inflict harm upon the enemy through offensive strikes and defensive counter-strikes. Hitler's commanders were prevented in many cases from following basic tactical and strategic retreats which, if allowed, could have won or delayed some of the engagements until reinforcements could arrive, or strengths could be centralized. He also sent his best armor commander to North Africa, to punish him for being a good armor commander.

But aside from that singular point, I can agree with you on the rest sir. Bravo.

Whose ready for Democracy and Freedom?

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: FrontRunner

My bad, i'm sure they could beat some countries too.

Like Paraguay, or Rwanda.

The Invasion of Grenada was the greatest chapter in American Military History.

You mean CUBA not Greneda

...not that OUR forces could tell the difference by their fighting skills...like Iraqis when when we hit them.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Can you kindly delineate the annals of the "American Empire"?
I thought we were a REPUBLIC ...some HISTORIAN you are ,military or otherwise.
GO BACK to school, so you MIGHT learn the definition of the word EMPIRE.