It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Americans - You claim your military is the best. Prove It

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Britain didn't have nuclear weapons. Once having nukes (and, as history speaks to it, being willing to use them) is a possibility, it's very unlikely that such a nation will become militarily incompetent. Simply put, we have the ability to blow just about up anything, anywhere. Military superiority is in America's hands at the moment. Where we are lacking, however, is economic ability. The way to truly harm America is by sanctioning it or trading oil in other currencies. Since our dollar is a fiat currency and thus is not backed by real value, it is very possible for us to become bankrupt and thus collapse if we lose our economic foothold.




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You're trolling as hard as Rush Limbaugh.

I applaud your trollishness.

Now as for you question.
Go look on the internet.
There's plenty of stuff out there to read.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Nuclear weapons are a false ideology. They will never be used in modern times, because if they did do something so foolish then the consequences would be too great. Is Australia or New Zealnd any less secure because it doesn't have nuclear weapons? The answer is NO.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Nuclear weapons are a false ideology. They will never be used in modern times, because if they did do something so foolish then the consequences would be too great. Is Australia or New Zealnd any less secure because it doesn't have nuclear weapons? The answer is NO.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I'm going to have to go with Daas, here.

The almighty US military has not "won" a war since the Spanish American war. Unless you count the invasion of the tiny island of Grenada, or the even tinier Panama. Of course, these were supposedly not "wars".

A full decade trying to conquer a country the size of NY state (Iraq) and whaddaya got? A whole lot a NUTHIN.

Afghanistan? Still going on. In fact, they held off the Russians for years, and now are still holding off the US. The two "biggest" militaries on the planet. So by that standard, Afghanistan has the most powerful army in the world.

I guess you could count invading Libya. But supposedly that was NOT a war, and it was NATO, led by the Brits. Supposedly.

The US has been involved in some type of military action for almost every year of its entire 200 plus year existence. Not a real good track record, when you get right down to it.

Best equipment, and most high tech, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the critical pieces are MADE IN CHINA.

"An army marches on its stomach" has always been the case. These days, supply lines for not only food, but fuel and other support are critical. Manufacturing of all the death weapons. Since the US has basically ZERO manufacturing anymore, well, what does that tell you? The only manufacturing in the US now is weapons. Super high tech stuff. All computer controlled, and bouncing all comms off satellites, running off computer chips. ALL MADE IN CHINA.

Figure it out. The US is what you would call a paper tiger. Buncha mujahideen with AKs on horseback have held them off more than a decade. You think those Chinese computer chips that control ALL THE SYSTEMS don't have backdoors built into them? You know, by the guys who built them, from the country that has the highest average IQ in the world? DUH.

Crash the dollar, and take out the computer controlled drones, GPS aimed everything, and what do you have left? Not much. The US has fired an average of 250 THOUSAND rounds for each "insurgent" killed in Iraq. Do the math.

Those 11 carrier battle groups? All "firepower": is now computer controlled and GPS aimed missiles. Quick EMP strike to take out the satellites and electronics, and a freaking fishing trawler with some torpedoes could take out the whole group. Think about it. Couple of Sopwith Camels with a few bombs could sink the whole group. Funny, huh? Not.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Ever heard of the Millennium Challenge? I thought not. A 250 million dollar "war game" to show how the US military can not, and will not, be defeated. So what happened?

US Navy was Blue, and an unspecified "rogue Middle Eastern regime" was Red.




Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications. Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.[1]

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[2]

After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action. After the wargame was restarted, the war game was forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among the rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on all his anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and Red Force was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3]

Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered that the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]

This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming American victory.,[3] which meant that "$250 million was wasted".[5]

Aftermath Due to his criticism regarding the scripted nature of the new exercise, Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game. Van Riper later expressed concern that the war game's purpose had shifted to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience. Van Riper also stated that the war game was rigged so that it appeared to validate the modern, joint-service war-fighting concepts it was supposed to be testing


So.......



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 

You do realize that American forces follow Geneva Conventions and have Rules of Engagement that correspond. That pretty much ties a hand, if not both behind their back and makes a huge difference on how combatants are approached and tracked.. therefore dragging out the war(s).

In other words, if there were no ROE's or we wrote off the Geneva Conventions and turned the Army and Marines loose that would be the quickest victory you have ever seen if your life.
edit on 14-6-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Here ya go: en.wikipedia.org...

Since WWI it has been non stop war. There was only ONE period of "peace": from 1999-2001. The War Pigs didn't like that, so they blew some stuff up to start more war. Few victories. OF course, the super powers of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Grenada were defeated, but the Ultra Super Powers of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were NOT.

Paper Tiger, it's called.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 31Bravo
reply to post by CaptChaos
 

You do realize that American forces follow Geneva Conventions and have Rules of Engagement that correspond. That pretty much ties a hand, if not both behind their back and makes a huge difference on how combatants are approached and tracked.. therefore dragging out the war(s).

In other words, if there were no ROE's or we wrote off the Geneva Conventions and turned the Army and Marines loose that would be the quickest victory you have ever seen if your life.
edit on 14-6-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)


Good excuse.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


I just read all that junk you posted and I must say you have ZERO clue about anything.

OBTW. You forgot the surrender of the japanese to the united states.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
CASH IS KING!!!

We all know America has the resources to spend this money and the technology.
en.wikipedia.org...
America is at the top of the list. Next is China.

US millitary budget 711 Billion dollars.
China's Millitary budget 141 Billion dollars

You do the math. Any thing China has US can have 6 more. Not to mention the black ops sector is not included in the budget because its classified.


But really in the end....

It does not matter how many tanks you have, or men. A country could develop something that would change the battlefield. So this thread is pointless. Speculation on the topic is pointless. War is much more complicated then biggest guns.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Infi8nity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I'm sure most of you know I speak out against the military, government, corporations, whatever, when it is seemingly relevant.

However I am afraid this entire discussion in this thread has no bearing on logical analysis or philosophical reasoning.

So yeah, I do regret reading 2 pages of it.
Pointless pointlessness is pointless.

The reason I post this is because I think we should utilize discretion and realize that there are legitimate criticisms and there are illegitimate criticisms. Also there are rants based upon anger or other emotions. This probably falls under the latter (tertiary) reason suggested.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Go look at the videos from cnn on the first Iraq war. It was awe inspiring, frightening and sick all at the same time. The war machine is alive and well here. The only difference in each war is who the commander in chief is.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
The USA didn't 'lose' Vietnam.
Vietnam lost the most, while USA lost a lot as well.

The "Winner" was the international banking cartels, the military industrial conglomerates, and the politricks who lied us into the war with false flags.

The 'goal' of the Vietnam war was stated as "Stopping the spread of communism".
However, the 'goal' of Iraq 2.0 was to "Stop proliferation of WMD".

These are both falsified reasoning given to the public and are misleading.

The real reason we went to Vietnam was to kill as many people as possible, disrupt any form of peaceful development they were engaged in, and to divert the attention of the nations to a calamity which would tie them all up for years protesting immaterial when in reality, they were ignoring all of the real issues going on behind the scenes.

This is what we call a decoy, or smoke screen tactic. Essentially they create something that diverts our attention, and it allows them to control the political atmosphere by controlling the main topics discussed and relegating opinion to a right vs left false paradigm.

Here is how you determine "who really won the war".

Who got injured/killed? They lost.
Who made a lot of $$$ and didn't get hurt at all? They won.

It's a pretty sick world we live in...
But this nationalism mind control crap has got to stop.
Nation's don't actually exist it's a con to fool us into creating false differences and killing each other over entirely fictional fantasies that exist only in our imaginative brains.
It's called mind control...brainwashing...propaganda.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I don't know why I'm even responding to this thread, because I personally think war is primitive way of solving the worlds problems, and in war their are never any winners.

Having said that, any country who possesses nuclear arms is capable of causing enough destruction, death, and communication problems it really is a ridiculous argument. Any country boasting their military superiority is really a bully, who won't get the point until the bullied country strikes back.

We all know the result when W said "bring it on" to the terrorists. Not all wars are fought on a level playing field. The U.S. should know better since we won the Revolutionary war because of our unconventional way of ambushing the Brits. For all the high tech weaponry the U.S. has, a determined adversary will always find another way of defeating it.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


What a silly thread. This sounds like a high school kid challenging another child to a fight behind the school at lunch.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I have only read your title of this thread...
Americans' had the best military until our corrupt government
started outsourcing EVERYTHING overseas.I wonder who is
making our military tech stuff now?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Assumptions lol, the funny thing is the USA brags about everything tech wise. The ones to worry about are the ones that say nothing.

To assume the other great military's has lesser tech is presumptuous, and is a weakness in it self.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
You want proof??....attack us.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
This just shows your ignorance of the situation. You don't have to take any individual's word for it, and you can just find the information on your own. If you would do a simple Google search you will realize that there are professional firms that calculate stuff like this, and every single one places the USA at the top of the list as far as military strength.

And the good analyses take into account a LOT more than you would ever think to consider, and the numbers can be compared for what they truly are. Go to a website called GlobalFirepower, and their list for 2012 lists the USA as having the strongest military in the world, which is OBVIOUS considering that the US spends much more than ANY other country on their military.

So again, you are just showing your ignorance of basic facts, and I really despise people of this nature...Because instead of admitting you have no idea what you are talking about, you let your personal bias get in the way of true facts. If you want to deny ignorance, then you should do your own research before coming to the world, or the members here on ATS, and claiming that something is true when it clearly is a blatant lie. But I don't think you're a liar; I think that you simply did not do any research at all, and just assumed that since you don't think the US has the strongest military, that it should be fact. That is sad, and it's just wrong. FAIL.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join