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

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Great movie. George C Scott great. The Chinese SSBNs have been operational and their SLBMs have MIRVs with a range of 8000km. If fully operational they are devastating.
Both the US and China have said they will never use nuclear weapons first so in reality it is not a realistic scenario. Hopefully.




Now listen boys this is it. Nuclear combat toe to toe with the Ruskies.
It vill all be done vith compuders.

Originally posted by alldaylong
It's a myth that the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam War. Or worse it was propaganda bestowed by the US Government on it's people. Here is a list of just some of the battles the US lost:-

www.g2mil.com...

The U.S. never lost a major battle to the NVA or Vietkong.

The source you provided is grasping a bit, nearly every listing are inconsequential platoon level firefights.

Just FYI, the author Carlton Meyer is considered to be a tool by most interested in the subject. He's made a bit of a name for himself writing tripe such as the link in your post.Google his name and see what real combat vets have to say about his opinions.

How do you honestly count things like "The ambush near Khe San" or "Khe Sahn Village Overrun" as victories? The actions were part of the greater battle for Khe San which was a resounding U.S. victory.

The battle for Khe San was a small part of the greater Tet offensive, how well did that work out for the NVA and VC?

When the dust cleared, another overwhelming U.S. victory.

The Iron Hand strikes were a failure?

Try telling that to the NVA and Soviet Fan Song Radar operators and get back to me.

Linebacker II was a failure? Only if you consider having your capital city carpet bombed day and night at will...Please, tell us more,

I can pick apart quite a bit more of his commentary if you like but I'm sure that wont change your mind.

It was politics, not military capability that decided the fate of Vietnam.

Ignorant fools.

Base your pride on the strength of your military, it's no wonder no one likes you.

Though, I'm sure your military is superior to most seeing as you're the only country still involved in major wars and trying to conquer the world either via Hollywood and the media or just by blowing the hell out of everyone who has a natural resource you require.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

Both the US and China have said they will never use nuclear weapons first so in reality it is not a realistic scenario. Hopefully.

edit on 3-11-2012 by JimTSpock because: edgar

Agreed, saber rattling over half submerged rocks in the South China Sea or Taiwan aside, we both have too much to lose and nothing to gain.

India and Pakistan however... ?

reply to post by DariusHames


Best potassium in vorld. And now I hunt gypsy.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are a worry in that order, I think. They will have to be dealt with in the future one way or another. Pakistan diplomacy as long as extremists don't take power, the other two, who knows. North Korea is a basket case and needs a revolution. Iran could go the way of Syria anytime. A nuclear Iran will not be tolerated by Israel or the US and time is becoming short.

reply to post by JimTSpock


Well this kind of thinking is pretty much as backwards as that.

For the most part I dont think China actually cares whether your military is superior. China is waging war via the economy

Originally posted by DariusHames

Ignorant fools

Oh the irony..

How is that fictional Hollywood character from a 1960's television show that regularly featured thinly veiled themes of American style cold war militarism featured in your avatar working for you?

reply to post by DariusHames


Hey man I'm spock!

I don't think China is interested in waging war with anyone. They just want to continue their amazing economic growth and be taken seriously. A country of over 1.38 billion people the communist government has it's hands full trying to prevent social unrest which is their worst nightmare. They have capitalism and one day they will want democracy and they will have it in my opinion, it's only a matter of time.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by peck420

 

Yes...and No. The People of the U.S. do not want WAR. But the World is a DANGEROUS PLACE! There is occasion now and then that the leash should come off.
Split Infinity

Are you really that gullible? Are you so blind to your
patrioism that you honestly believe that? In this day
and age, war is not about saving lives, its about money.

Do you really think that your, and my government went
into iraq to save those "poor people" ? Funny how documents
show that even before 9/11 they were talking about the iraq
oil. How many people have lost their lives to fill the pockets
of the rich and powerful?

But, as your op clearly shows, many people have been conditioned
from a young age to be patrioric for their country. Brainwash the
people, and you can pretty much get away with anything.

Our guns are bigger than your guns! We spend billions apon
billions every year on weapons every year for killing eachother.
Absolute joke!

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


You can troll all you want but seriously? Your military sucks your entire economy dry. You could have spent all that money in better ways. There's no more Nazis. . . you don't need a powerful military anymore. You don't need to police the world.

Also, you enemies have become smarter anyway. They'll do it by means of terrorism or by dominating you via the economy.

Your military is so advanced you no one will fight you head on so they just figure out other avenues of crippling you. America has lost most of its war anyway. You might have killed a lot of Vietnamese but you didn't achieve your goal, neither did you in the middle east. All those fundamentalist will just return to those areas once you
are gone.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by alldaylong
It's a myth that the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam War. Or worse it was propaganda bestowed by the US Government on it's people. Here is a list of just some of the battles the US lost:-

www.g2mil.com...

The U.S. never lost a major battle to the NVA or Vietkong.

The source you provided is grasping a bit, nearly every listing are inconsequential platoon level firefights.

Just FYI, the author Carlton Meyer is considered to be a tool by most interested in the subject. He's made a bit of a name for himself writing tripe such as the link in your post.Google his name and see what real combat vets have to say about his opinions.

How do you honestly count things like "The ambush near Khe San" or "Khe Sahn Village Overrun" as victories? The actions were part of the greater battle for Khe San which was a resounding U.S. victory.

The battle for Khe San was a small part of the greater Tet offensive, how well did that work out for the NVA and VC?

When the dust cleared, another overwhelming U.S. victory.

The Iron Hand strikes were a failure?

Try telling that to the NVA and Soviet Fan Song Radar operators and get back to me.

Linebacker II was a failure? Only if you consider having your capital city carpet bombed day and night at will...Please, tell us more,

I can pick apart quite a bit more of his commentary if you like but I'm sure that wont change your mind.

It was politics, not military capability that decided the fate of Vietnam.

edit on 3-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax

You have made my point. You believe your own propaganda.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are a worry in that order, I think. They will have to be dealt with in the future one way or another. Pakistan diplomacy as long as extremists don't take power, the other two, who knows. North Korea is a basket case and needs a revolution. Iran could go the way of Syria anytime. A nuclear Iran will not be tolerated by Israel or the US and time is becoming short.

I was holding out the ridiculous hope that Kim Jong-un would break from the doctrine of Juche and actually make some effort to bring the DPRK out of the stone ages, unfortunately it is looking like he is cut from the same mold as his father and grandfather and noting short of a full scale internal revolution is going to change that.

Unfortunately, we both know what the consequence in terms of human tragedy would be for the entire peninsula.

I also have hope for Iran. The ruling Mullah's aside, Iran is fundamentally a progressive nation with a tremendous amount of potential within the world community.

They forced a regime change with the Shah, I believe when the time presents itself the people will reclaim power from the religious zealots and install a secular, democratic government. The Iranian citizenry are both educated and aware of world opinion and don't like the current situation any more than we do.

From my point of view, Pakistan is the most dangerous in that they have a population of 170 million people of vastly different cultures and beliefs. While democracy has a tenuous hold on power and continues to be a voice of reason and moderation, it is hard to ignore the fact that there is also a strong fundamentalist Islamic faction vying for power that seems to have at least some support within the hierarchy of their military leadership.

Add to the fact that they have a substantial nuclear arsenal and a proven means of regional delivery, mix in a long running blood feud with India that has erupted into 4 full fledged military conflicts in the short 60 odd years Pakistan has been a nation.



I realize the above is just a parade float created by an overly enthusiastic minority as an expression of national pride however this is not...



Scary stuff indeed...

Originally posted by alldaylong
You have made my point. You believe your own propaganda.

Can you provide evidence beyond a couple of unsourced sentences from a blog to contradict my assertion that the Linebacker II campaign, the Battle of Khe San or the Iron Hand SAM suppression doctrine were not all resounding military victories for the U.S.?

Linebacker II forced the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to accept the terms of the Paris peace accords effectively ending U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.

Win

When the dust cleared in and around the Khe San combat base U.S. forces were still in control of the real estate, had inflicted massively disproportionate casualties and had not resulted in enough of a distraction that the U.S. forces were unable to react to the broader front of the Tet offensive.

Win

I know an F-105 pilot who flew Operation Iron Hand missions, he would disagree with the author of the blog you cited.

Spin it how you want but the bombers always got through.

In the end, the North Virtnamese air defense network ceased to exist.

Win

I'm willing to guess that you read a blog that reinforces some negative opinion you harbor about the U.S. and cannot defend your opinion because don't know much on this subject.

I can support my point all day, how much time do you have?

Have you stopped to consider that you may be the one who has bought into a flawed argument and are parroting somebody else's propaganda without having the facts at your disposal?

reply to post by peck420

If you have something beyond petty snipes, cheap jabs and your own personal opinion to support yourself with....I'm all ears. Without that? I have a link at the bottom in my signature you might want to read about Political trolling. I dunno.. might help? You've done nothing but take cheap shots at my posts with nothing but your personal opinion thus far to back it.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


The US Military where in Vietnam for 8 years. That was longer than there involvement in WWII. After 8 years the US left Vietnam with the communists in control. How do you make that a victory?

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by DariusHames
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

You can troll all you want but seriously? Your military sucks your entire economy dry. You could have spent all that money in better ways. There's no more Nazis. . . you don't need a powerful military anymore. You don't need to police the world.

Also, you enemies have become smarter anyway. They'll do it by means of terrorism or by dominating you via the economy.

Your military is so advanced you no one will fight you head on so they just figure out other avenues of crippling you. America has lost most of its war anyway. You might have killed a lot of Vietnamese but you didn't achieve your goal, neither did you in the middle east. All those fundamentalist will just return to those areas once you
are gone.

I agree with some of the fundamental points you are making however..

Your military sucks

and

Your military is so advanced you no one will fight you head on

is a bit contradictory.

I would also point out that the NVA did not defeat the U.S. they defeated the ARVN.

The U.S. military had been gone for nearly 2 years when Saigon fell in 1975.

There seems to be a bit of a trend with some recently making the claim the U.S. has lost most/all of the wars it has fought in the last century.

How exactly do you honestly make that claim? Beyond Vietnam (which was a political, not military victory) how do you justify that statement?

Korea was about keeping the south democratic, last I checked the DPRK still starts north of the 38th parallel.

Grenada is not a Cuban province.

Manuel Noriega is in Prison.

Europe is not a Soviet controlled communist collective.

Kuwait is not the 19th province of Iraq.

Iraq has a democratically elected government and no longer suffers the tyranny of Saddam's regime.

Afghanistan, unfortunately you are probably right the extremists will just wait it out like the North Vietnamese.

Hopefully the investment and infrastructure the world has provided the Afghani people will continue to help the general population long after the military has withdrawn but probably not.

Regardless, Osama Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda has been rendered functionally impotent and the Taliban are hiding in the shadows where the drones cant find them.

Not optimal but far from defeat when measured by the objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

The US Military where in Vietnam for 8 years. That was longer than there involvement in WWII. After 8 years the US left Vietnam with the communists in control. How do you make that a victory?

en.wikipedia.org...

No, read the wiki article you cited more closley, what part of the Easter Offensive involved defeating the U.S.?

Northern collapse
Although North Vietnamese forces remained in the area and continued to shell An Loc heavily, the impetus of their offensive was over. By 12 June the last PAVN forces were driven from the city and its environs and over 1,000 ARVN wounded were evacuated.[54] Slowly, the decimated North Vietnamese units faded away to the north and west as others covered their withdrawal. On 18 June the headquarters of III Corps declared the siege to be over. The Saigon government claimed that 8,000 South Vietnamese had been killed or wounded at An Loc, approximately 1,000 of whom were civilians. American sources claimed that 25,000 PAVN or NLF troops had been killed during the action, although those numbers could never be confirmed

The Easter Offensive resulted in..... Linebacker II

Operation Linebacker II
Operation Linebacker II operations were initiated on 18 December 1972 and were directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to continue until further notice. The primary objective of the bombing operation would be to force the North Vietnamese government to enter into purposeful negotiations concerning a cease-fire agreement. The operation employed air power to its maximum capabilities in an attempt to destroy all major target complexes such as radio stations, railroads, power plants, and airfields located in the Hanoi and Haiphong areas. Unlike previous bombing campaigns, Linebacker II provided the Air Force and U.S. Naval forces with specific objectives and removed many of the restrictions that had previously caused frustration within the Pentagon.

During these operations, Air Force and Navy tactical aircraft and B-52s commenced an around-the-clock bombardment of the North Vietnamese heartland. The B-52s struck Hanoi and Haiphong during hours of darkness with F-111s and Navy tactical aircraft providing diversionary/suppression strikes on airfields and surface-to-air missile sites. Daylight operations were primarily carried out by A-7s and F-4s bombing visually or with long-range navigation (LORAN) techniques, depending upon the weather over the targets. In addition, escort aircraft such as the Air Force EB-66s and Navy EA-6s broadcast electronic jamming signals to confuse the radar-controlled defenses of the North. The Strategic Air Command also provided KC-135s to support the in-flight refueling requirements of the various aircraft participating in Linebacker II operations.

Andersen Air Force Base in Guam was the site of the most massive buildup of air power in history. More than 15,000 people and more than 150 B-52s lined all available space on the flightline. During Operation Linebacker II in December 1972, bombers stationed at Andersen flew 729 sorties in 11 days.

Operation Linebacker II

Google the Paris Peace Accords.

The U.S. left in 1973. Saigon fell in 1975.

Political defeat yes, military defeat, no.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Can you provide evidence beyond a couple of unsourced sentences from a blog to contradict my assertion that the Linebacker II campaign, the Battle of Khe San or the Iron Hand SAM suppression doctrine were not all resounding military victories for the U.S.?

Linebacker II and the militarization of Guam polluted the water heavily there. The US Marines can't move from Okinawa to Guam right now because of that bad water.

Right now we are waiting for Barack Obama to sign the EPA Waiver paperwork which will WAIVER the Clean Water Act and all those chemicals dumped into Guam now sitting on the bottom of the water aquifer.

If Obama signs that paper then 8,000 Marines and their wives and kids will be going over there and drinking/showering in TCE's and other bad bad chemicals.

LineBacker II is STILL TO THIS DAY...burning America in the @$$.

Google "Andersen AFB SuperFund" and click on the EPA site, scroll down to "Marbo Annex".

Good readin.

One little vial of a pathogen can destroy the US.

The reason Greece was never taken over by communists after WW2 was because the Greeks were fighting for their homeland and for their religion. They saw communists as godless people.

Iran will fight for their country and their religion. This is a huge advantage! Meanwhile many US soldiers are dissolutioned with their country.

The US made a mistake in leaving sanctions active for so long. Iran has had decades to build their own weapon systems. While I agree that the US is formidable, keep in mind that the west has no idea what Iran has. We also have no idea of Iran's capability in asymmetrical warfare. You can bet they have watched the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with interest.

You are also assuming that after the fall of the USSR, that Iran did not purchase tactile nukes on the black market. Using them on their borders or against battle groups would be interesting.

You have no idea what new weapons the US has. You also have no idea what weapons China , or Iran or Russia has. A radically new weapon may surprise the hell out of an attacking force.

Lastly, the industrial complex in America wants the US to lose battle groups and aircraft, preferably in record numbers! Then they can make many more billions in replacing them all.

Just one little vial with a decent pathogen, scary thought. It could already be within your borders!

P