What drives some to make the assumption that the U.S. is NOT as Militarily Advanced as it truly is?

Sigh.

Split Infinity, Damir, I didn't want to bring this up but I need to point this out to you. I do know who you are. After all the military talk you've done lately I needed to look it up. Anyways, many of the things you've been saying about new technology have been publicly stated in popular magazine like "Popular Science/Mechanics" and the like regarding the FEL laser. The woven body armor, well, I have a very good idea where that came from.

But your credibility is becoming less to me, lately. You've shared in this thread that you've had an esteemed military career, your high school friend is a Lt. Colonel and the such... but you've also stated you were a wealthy business owner with multiple companies, a musician/rock star that had been on tour, as well as an actor in the movie industry.

Split Infinity - Who am I - Link

I help run several of my Families Companies which all started as Small Businesses. We all worked VERY HARD and I am now wealthy. We had decided long ago not to GO PUBLIC and have kept our Companies Privately owned. This was a topic of Great and Long Discussion as Venture Capitalists were VERY interested in two specific Companies my Family owns.

...MONEY CANNOT BUY HAPPINESS! It can help ease tensions and provide basic necessities as well as Luxury of Living...but at one point in my life where being in the Entertainment Business...thus ALWAYS BEING SURROUNDED BY OTHERS BUT HOPELESSLY BEING AND FEELING ALONE...loneliness to an extent that creates Physical Pain....I was not truly HAPPY until I began dating My Girl.

She filled a Void inside me and we had been friends first as she had dated my Guitar Player and knew my Lifestyle so there were no secrets or a necessity to keep anything from her as she had been with us on tour and understood how a Man who as a Musician can be with any Woman that he chooses for a Night or so...

Your age?

I replied to her that I had been waiting a long time for the right woman and if she saw something in my friend that she did not see in me...then it was not meant to be. The exact moment of her choosing me was after a small friendly kiss on the nose from behind her and over her left shoulder that she then turned and hugged me and said...If we are going to be Dating then....and the rest of the sentence was drowned out by the band! I immediately smiled and replied...WE ARE GOING TO BE DATING? She said of course! S.I.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Really? Documents show that western companies were
desperate to get their hands on the oil. Invade iraq, put in
a western friendly government. Libya, and next iran. Some
people are just so blind. This is not a plan for the next few tears.
Its a long term plan.
link

It is safe to say that the US military has some check-mate military technology. We have developed it for years. And any country that thinks they can rival it will just get their scientists bought off and moved to the US to fuel our military tech.

reply to post by SoulVisions


Why are you trying to character assassinate this man?.

Do you not agree with what he says?

No where in your quoted material did I read where he stated he was an actor. What do you think a musician is? Maybe an entertainer?

There is no reason to believe that he was not a succesful musician. Jimmy Hendrix served in the military you know? As did several other musicians.

Quite frankly any of the quoted material you provided is pretty vague to come to any conclusion as to what his past or present may be.

What is up with the character assassination attempt?

Why do you honestly care? The man could be Steven Tyler"s producer for all we know.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
As for your statement of Having Our Ass handed to us...PLEASE! More people die in the U.S. in a Month by slipping in the Bathroom that have died in BOTH WARS over a decade long! Split Infinity

Can you provide some proof of that assessment? I thought not.

Yeah, the US have a war plan for everything. BUT SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. Do you think the US' plans would survive against the retaliatory or pre-emptive strikes by their enemies?

Lets take Russia as an example.

The US have their contingency plan to deal with Russia. They strike and crush vast military positions.
Russia's warning systems kick in before the US can hit the internal and integral parts of Russia. Russia retaliates with their brand new ICBM and their nuclear subs. The US could bomb as much of Russia as they want, but they can't track those subs, each sub carries 10-12 Trident-class missiles which have 8 nuclear warheads a pop. Russia gets out even 2 of those subs and you will see every major U.S. city a smoking crater before the night is out.


The US are powerful but Russia, and China to a lesser extent, still has the capability to wipe out most of your population within days.

Get your head out of your rectum, ffs.

You scream at the top of your lungs about the US's military power, but have you ever stopped to think about how easy it would be for Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan, N. Korea (etc) to simple drop their nuclear payloads onto a trading vessel, send it into a US port and detonate the warhead?

Your country has outgrown other nations militarily, but simplicity will undo the trillions you have spent.

Remember 9/11? A couple hijackers stole 4 commercial jets and took out 3 buildings (4 if you include WTC 7)... Where was your great and powerful air defense systems then?

Originally posted by Uberdavo

 

 

It seems the mods are "denying ignorance through censorship" again.

Please email me your post as a private message, I would very much like to read what you replied to me with as I believe that arbitrarily censoring the comments of others is the very definition of ignorance.

Originally posted by Trajan
Russia retaliates with their brand new ICBM and their nuclear subs. The US could bomb as much of Russia as they want, but they can't track those subs, each sub carries 10-12 Trident-class missiles which have 8 nuclear warheads a pop. Russia gets out even 2 of those subs and you will see every major U.S. city a smoking crater before the night is out.

What brand new subs? The Borei currently has one boat in the class, with a second undergoing trials and joining it soon, if it hasn't yet. That makes two. A third is expected to be commissioned next year, with the fourth being technically a new class.

Although if you want to get technical none of them have been commissioned yet. They're still testing the new missiles, and systems. The Yuriy Dolgorikiy, the lead of the class, will be commissioned next year. They have been having numerous technical problems, and have pushed her commissioning back several times.

As for not being able to track them, no one knows yet if they can or not. They've only been in protected areas doing trials. When they get out to sea, we'll find out if they can be tracked or not.

reply to post by Zaphod58

lol I remember when Kim beazley was the Australian minister for defence. he spent a tonne of cash on silent subs. when we started our first one up we got a call from the U.S saying "we can hear you"

One of our most expensive "weapons" although perhaps not-so-secret is the logistical capability of the U.S. to readily move huge amounts of men and material to where they're needed. Pretty much have what you want where you want it in under two weeks. I don't think other militaries can match that on a comparable scale. And to maintain that state of readiness, with things warehoused and maintained on standby - it's expensive!

Yet with all that, there are still black programs not to be discounted. Some of those could possibly be regarded to break treaties or who knows what. Yet if that's what it takes to have that extra ace up your sleeve, then it's likely it's in place ready to go.

As far as not attacking other places? No economic benefits from doing so. (It's Sun Tzu 101.) Either the resources to be gained won't provide a positive balance after a conflict, or that other powerful countries are happier with certain regimes left in place such that there is economic pressure to leave "adversarial" countries alone. And it's not always about the U.S. as a country benefiting though (look at the two places we got most recently involved in), which is why everyone should keep in mind about what Eisenhower once said. Dealing with our country seems to have at least two major layers of economics and politics. (Official government and MIC.)

Originally posted by Trajan
Your country has outgrown other nations militarily, but simplicity will undo the trillions you have spent.

You are right about this, in one way or another. Not too long ago, there were bills, stemming from inner-departmental orders, passed to begin simplifying what the US military really needs versus wants. The cutbacks have already been taking place, with the initial focus on the aforementioned value of "force-multipliers." More simplification of the branches is on the way.

From a first-person perspective within the development area, I am confidently able to share that new outlandish designs, that were all the rage years back, have given way to simpler forms. You will see this as the case more and more in the next couple of years. The FEL laser is nice, absolutely, and certainly jump-starts the new era of military weapons development but, until the finances are there to back up further endeavors, as well as those having to do with energy output specifically, things will be slowing down for a time while they reassess our global standing and what is really needed to not just be able to take the offense but to just sit back for a time, accumulate more resources, and then decide whether more interest should be directed toward the fields of defensive measure or to continue along the the line of "overwhelming power." There is no middle ground. Not anymore.

Other nations have followed the US developments and spent millions (maybe more?) in order to counter what's been brought to the world's attention. Again, this being the case, the US either decides to play catch-up and spy into other nations offensive measures and work on counters, or just continue ever to seek offensive weaponry categorized as "next-generation." The only problem with this of course, is that with "next-gen" warfare, it is extremely expensive. Or at least until means of factory production and efficiency have been thoroughly investigated, whereupon it's only an issue of material and industrial time constraints.

reply to post by Trajan


Although I used the slip statement as an analogy...here is some proof...www.nfsi.org...

I did say that off the top of my head but I am very close. As far as China and Russia are concerned...the U.S. could very well battle both at the same time and win.

If it went nuclear...our current ABM system is very capable and although no one really wins in a Nuclear War...neither China nor Russia would ever DARE attempt to start one with the U.S.

Try to be polite. You are not endearing yourself to anyone when you make a simple debate...PERSONAL.
Split Infinity

reply to post by liejunkie01

Thank you for the kind words and I am happy to see that you understand that this Topic simply raises a Question. I have run into the typical Hit and Run posters who do not understand the purpose of my question and I am very glad to know that you are an exception.

You have understood the reason for my question perfectly and you have provided a very good answer of which I am in agreement upon.

It is unfortunate that some bluster emotionally without taking time to think about what this questions purpose was for. KUDOS TO YOU! Split Infinity

reply to post by SoulVisions

S.V....although it seems unreal...I am who I say I am and if you know who I really am...you would know what I say is true. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you know who I am although it is possible that you caught a break with a Lucky Guess. If that is so and you actually found out who I am...you would not be posting what you have.

Split Infinity...p.s...someone once googled the name Split Infinity and found some Garage Band...I looked it up and found some guy wearing a chain hat...LOL! That is not me nor am I anyone in the group...also...I have NEVER stated I was Military...I have stated over and over I am "CIVILIAN".

And speaking of civilians:AMERICA'S HUNTERS --- Pretty Amazing!



A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin.Allow me to restate that number: 600,000.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.More men under arms than in Iran.More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.


Hunting...it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control. Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

Our vets are well blooded and count over and beyond the above noted hunters.

reply to post by alldaylong


Simple question, simple answer. We won't get involved because of political and economic backlash. Just because you think you can win a fight doesn't mean you jump into a fight with any takers, especially if you don't believe it will be advantageous. While the US may not have to worry about weapons technology being a threat, economically and politically Russia and China have a great deal of influence. If we had bad relations with China then it would only make things worse economically if we were to somehow become violent with one another. It would be bad for both countries and while Russia isn't the super-power it once was, it's still one of the largest countries in the world and they still have a lot of old tech which holds weight as a GLOBAL threat. So politically Russia pulls a large amount of weight in the UN and if Russia ever got mad enough they could go nuclear which is also true of China. While we may have weapons systems capable of dealing with nuclear strikes in theory; that's not one of those things you want to try in practice unless you have to. After-all nuclear fall out is good for no one so even if we were to stop a nuclear strike via laser or something mid-air, people would still be effected.

....and btw, why the hell should we get involved anyway? Let Syria deal with it's own problems.... if people are getting sick of the US policing the world....let the world take care of itself and be damned then.

I for one, as an American, am tired of the U.S. looking to other shores for problems to fix. Let the U.S. take care of problems on it's on soil first. Like the hurricane relief the north east needs right now, or the economy in general needing a boost. The U.S. has some #ed up priorities. I love how Michelle Obama went out of her way to make a huge relief fund for Haiti after that earthquake happened but I haven't seen any campaigns for people to donate for New York relief for the hurricane....Nothing personal to Haiti. I just think it's retarded that we worry more about other countries then we worry about our own.

No one of any intellect thinks that the US is not militarily advanced. However, it is has much less manpower than the Chinese, and probably a little less than the Russians. The Chinese have modified AKs, and LEGIONS AND LEGIONS more men and machines than any western power. No matter what technological superiority the US has, it will be largely unimportant in the face of man power of that nature.

So the Americans have lightning ray guns (no really, they do), huge aircraft carriers, powerful tanks, and really good sniper rifles (although typically, there aint a single one who can shoot straight worth a damn). All of that will fall appart when facing a Chinese enemy that could literally swamp the US with bodies alone! Hell, they run out of bullets, they just start catapulting thier men at enemy positions!

reply to post by TrueBrit


Technology and strategy win over manpower, always!

The American war-machine is massive, it's able to level most of the other countries armed forces at the same time.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Technology and strategy win over manpower, always!

The American war-machine is massive, it's able to level most of the other countries armed forces at the same time.

However you don't even know when Russian Subs are near your coast:-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by alldaylong


Where does it say they didn't know it was there? In fact it says they detected it prior to giving it safe harbor in Florida. It's not like it sailed into the harbor and surfaced.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
No one of any intellect thinks that the US is not militarily advanced. However, it is has much less manpower than the Chinese, and probably a little less than the Russians. The Chinese have modified AKs, and LEGIONS AND LEGIONS more men and machines than any western power. No matter what technological superiority the US has, it will be largely unimportant in the face of man power of that nature.

...

Not to get all dark and morbid, but you don't think the U.S. Military knows that and has "something" in their pocket to pull out should the SHTF. I think we have some method of really going after a numerically superior army. It's probably pretty gruesome though and would not be used unless the situation is very very dire.

Take away China's manpower advantage and what do you have? Not a whole lot.

Let's hope most of the really advanced stuff never gets used.