How powerful is the U.S. military? Are they underestimated?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itlnlovr5
it still doesn't answer the question Carburetor. we do have a lot of military power i mean the marine corp alone could take out iran
(oor-rah) if and only if we had the money to do so. but you have to think about how much money its going to cost us to fight 3 countries and help iraq.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by itlnlovr5]



I don't think we'll have a problem financially, not anytime soon:




U.S. Military Spending

The United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending.

The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 is $420.7 billion

* For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
* This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are indeed staggering.
In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

Consider the following:

* The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.
* The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.
* It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.
* The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.


www.globalissues.org...




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Very interesting stats, and again I had no idea it was that much more than the "axis of evil"
. What tactics do you all think the U.S. will use against NK, Iran and Syria? Is the airforce enough to decimate thier armies? Again I agree the U.S. will not be occupying these places (if they can avoid it).

By the way, I think we will evetually be drug into a conflict outside of Iraq very soon. Rhetoric is very simillar to build up to Iraq war. Just hope there isnt a draft.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
do you think we could afford to right now go to war with three countries?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
No I dont. Unless they start taxing the hell out of us.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The US military can take out any other single nations conventional forces without much trouble at all, the only possible trouble in terms of convential forces would be against a large alliance of countries that are mostly US allies at present. It's when it becomes street to street fighting against a Vietnam or Stalingrad like resistance that even the most powerful and advanced forces find it hard to win.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itlnlovr5
do you think we could afford to right now go to war with three countries?


I think if we were entirely alone, all of us as Americans would maybe have to tighten our belts a little, but we would all do it if need be. However, we would not be alone, if the $hit hit the fan all at once, our main allies would be there. And also, I don't see North Korea doing anything more than posturing for a sweet deal from us, I honestly don't see them as a threat. Kim just wants to come out of this looking the best he can, he doesn't want his country, and with it his ego, destroyed. I think this will stay in the middle east.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The US is just messing around with these guys. They haven't even mobilized, for God's sake.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Since US has a lot of troops stationed in Germany, Japan other places, maybe it could squeeze 10-20,000 soldiers from there if Iran attacks? It's not like Russia will invade Germany...
So I think US wouldn't have much of a problem with manpower if war with Iran happens, kill ratio would be vastly superior.

If this does occur, I don't think it will be any sooner before this summer or later because with inflation increased somewhat right now they wont risk reduced economy performance.
US may be able to defeat Iran's army, but occupation of Iran without a draft is impossible.
I guess they could arrange some kind of cease fire agreement or bomb their infrastructure to stone age.
But anyhow, I find it unlikely that any of this will happen, so...

Oh and, one thing needs to be said about US military budget. As living standard in US is much bigger in US and army pays people much more than in any other countries, it should be noted that manpower costs much more for US than other countries, this element takes up a much larger portion of its budget than it usually would.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Megaquad]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Here's my thoughts about recent events around the world. The US isn't gonna invade NK unless something big happens in the near future but considering how the US knows that it could become a potential conflict the military is already planning out there strategy to take over NK very quickly, same goes for Iran. They are both considerable conflicts at some point but the US military is planning out quick wars with both nations. I truely don't think there will be a draft even tho the US is kinda short on men to fight. Reason why is because many nations are pissed about the recent assasination and if enough evidence is there to support Syria's role in the suicide bombing then many nations will go in and take out Syria which will keep them under control and maybe even making Iraq better because we all know there letting "freedom fighters" across the border to attack American soldiers and with the UN, NATO or whatever coalition is in Syria they will seal the border. With Syria and Irans recent announcement about there alliance the coalition who will be goin into Syria will also probably go into Iran which will help the US out in Iraq also because that border will also be sealed. I don't think NK is really that big of a problem for us to invade them because were still tryin to get the 6 party talks goin which i think will have to happen because were not giving into NK because were sick of hearing MR. Kim complaining. It kinda seems like if we went to war with NK that they would use nukes against us forgeting the fact that we've had them way before NK and we still have them and they are most certainly ready to be launched which i doubt they will but still. If NK nukes our allies or us they will be shooting themselves in the foot. Eventually I think he'll have to give in. The rest or the world might get impatient and the US won't have to do much except agree and lead a coalition of nations and they will help stabalize NK and get them aid and everything they pretty much want. So therefore I think NK is pretty much taken care of it just depends how much you wanna listen to Kim whine to the world. Thats what I think will happen. I could definitly be wrong but for right now thats my thoughts.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinxc
Very interesting stats, and again I had no idea it was that much more than the "axis of evil"
. What tactics do you all think the U.S. will use against NK, Iran and Syria? Is the airforce enough to decimate thier armies? Again I agree the U.S. will not be occupying these places (if they can avoid it).

By the way, I think we will evetually be drug into a conflict outside of Iraq very soon. Rhetoric is very simillar to build up to Iraq war. Just hope there isnt a draft.


It depends what the objectives are. The US military can "take" Iran and Syrias militaries without ground troops. We can decimate thm from the air and leave their conventional forces useless.

The problem is what to do after that.

If I were in charge, I would get Iranians to fight for us. Believe it or not, the majority of their youth wants change. They are actually quite "western" despite their current rulers.

North Korea is a completely different beast.

First of all, they are a nuclear power. That right there presents tons of problems.

Second, they have THOUSANDS of artillary pieces pointed south at Seoul (spl?). I have seen estimates of a million South Koreans dead from bombardment in the first hour alone. This puts tremendous pressure on the US because we would be responsable for so many of our allies losses.

Third, their country is entirely brainwashed. They are not allowed to see anthing outside their own country, and are very loyal to ol' Kim.

Lastly, they have a VERY large standing army - something over a million foot soldiers. That is a lot of man power.

IMO, the best strategy for North Korea is to assasinate Kim covertly - from the inside. Thaking out his familly would be needed as well, as he has hiers to his thrown of power.


After this, we would need a plan in place to have South Korea take over for them. One thing that we would have in ourr favor here as opposed to in the Middle East is that North Koreans do not have a religious hate towards America - only loyalty to their country. Thus, if it was South Korea handling things on the ground, the resistance would be much less - especially when they began to learn what the real world was like without big brother.

Over all though, our military is not underestimated - every country knows who their dady is. If it came to war with anyone, we would take the other country behind the woodshed and have our way with them. No one has the combination of technology, funding, manpower, training and combat experience that we bring to the table.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
How powerful is the U.S. military? The answer to that is equally as powerful as Russia. Why? Because both could launch enough missiles tipped with nuclear warheads to end not only Western civilization as we know it but send the world plummeting into a survival state or just plain good ol nuclear winter for the next 200 years.

Other nuclear states of lesser global MILITARY importance and influence (Israel, any Arab state with a few warheads, North Korea, and much of Western Europe *individually* (EU is another "beast"), have the capability to launch a World War with devasting nuclear results (0 is the only correct number) or instigate a situation where a global player (US, Russia, and China to a lesser extent) respond in kind.

That's the real answer to the question.

~ Rebel Saint ~



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Why does everybody has this notion that the U.S military is the strongest military in the world?Is it because of their equipment or their battle experience?BS.There is no such thing as the strongest military in the world.It all depends on the situation.Not the military that goes into the situation.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
We should of given Madagascar to the Jews in 1945, then we'd have no problems
it's no holy land and the native population at the time was small and under french colonial rule.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 17-2-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

The US spends more in its own military then just about the whole rest of the world combined spend on theirs. That should tell you enough right there. Our black budget alone is bigger then many countries whole military budget.

If people underestimate that they do so at their own risk like djohnsto77 said.


And yet with all they spend on military prowess and preparing for conventional warfare, they can still be disrupted and eroded by a growing number of civilians carrying small arms and explosives simply because they maintain the gifts of unconventional fighting and extreme higher moral.

It is my belief that the strongest military force in the world cannot kill an idea or win a war when they are fighting an enemy that is not conscripted... not seen... not paid... fights through need, not order... and never stops...



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
sure you can johhny, you just have to kill a hell of a lot more of em to weed out the agression. Kinda like killing any pit bulls who attck or are agressive and only allowng those who are docile to breed.
We can do the same to the middle east it'll just take awhile.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
sure you can johhny, you just have to kill a hell of a lot more of em to weed out the agression. Kinda like killing any pit bulls who attck or are agressive and only allowng those who are docile to breed.
We can do the same to the middle east it'll just take awhile.


The plan you describe was employed in Vietnam, I am to assume you will be content with a similar ending for Iraq?

Your country has been trying to kill a 'hell of a lot more of em', but yet their numbers have increased not decreased, why? Can you explain that? A phrase that springs to mind is “evil begets evil”

To me it seems the more you throw at people like this, the more it will fuel their hatred, and the more collateral damage that occurs will only serve to bring more people into the fight on their side.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
No johnny it was not. The simple fact is that Vietnam was not a war we lost, it was a war we were never allowed to fight.
Had the politicians stayed out of it and let the military do its thing, Vietnam would be a US protectorate right now.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by justinxc
Hello everybody,

Before I begin, I just wanna say this is my first post, so have mercy, and that I always enjoy reading the intelligent conversations that go on here.
This is a great place to hear different points of view and get information the normal media just cannot match. Anyway, on to my topic.

Just how powerful is the U.S. military? Can we reallly defend ourselves against all the threats arising? I gotta tell ya, I cannot help but think that we are being underestimated by a lot of countries out there, just becuase who the hell knows what we have. Dubya must know something we don't. Am I wrong? Why is it everybody takes our aggressiveness? Lets try to leave the nuke factor out, because china has them too and so does russia. What make our (conventional) military so powerful. Im not biased in either direction, just wanna get some perspective that is all. I look forward to reading your thoughts. Can we come out of this supposed "war on terror" in one piece?


Hi justinxc this is a funny subject, Just because the american government is throwing billions at it's military doesn't mean that it is being spent on the military. Look at the Brits or Aussies or even china for that matter they don't throw as much money at there powers but I can say that in a battlefield enviroment they would be just as powerful if not better due to the tactics used. For example who would come out on top a street fighter or a trained ninja. I know this is a bit silly example but the principles are very much the same. The worst mistake anyone can make is underestimating your enemy! And I know for a fact that there are many countries that certainly DO NOT underestimate they calculate then commence an action.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
So here is the question.....how soon will the U.S. and Syria be at war?
Diplomacy is breaking down more and more each day. Also, I agree that our military planners are licking their chops at the thought of unleashing hell on syria. It wont be like Iraq, we wont be trying to help them, we will be trying to mangle them. And we are very good at that. Look at Gulf war I and II before the occupation. Complete military domination.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Though they're talking about changing it or they're already starting to phase it out...as of now our military is still built to conduct two wars at the same time.
Do not let what's happening in Iraq fool you.
Ex. from Netchicken


Actually I think America is being OVERestimated militarily.

They are reaching crisis point in Iraq, with not enough soldiers,
recruitment is dropping, reservists are being called up for active duty.

We have enough troops....why we didn't use them and instead used the National Guard and Reservist? I don't know. Maybe Germany and Japan are still hot spots and we don't want to use take them away...though it would have added over 100,000 more troops.
Using those troops now though is unneccesary as we're trying to leave.

When used right (





new topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join