Is the U.S. Military Invincible?

[XASA]

This topic came up on another thread when On the Rocks stated the only forces America has faced since Korea were Third World nations. I responded that there wasn't a First or Second World nation that could defeat the U.S. and On the Rocks argued China could.

My response:


"I think a war with China would be horrorific not only for the U.S. and China but for the entire world; however, I think, in the end, the U.S. would prevail militarily due to a vastly superior technological advantage as well as, heaven forbid, the dreaded nuclear option. The resulting political ramifications of such a victory, though, would not be worth the effort. This would make for a good thread on its own, so I'll start one."

[UoUo]

True....

Usa army is the most powerfull army in the world...no dout.

woot

[Kitsune]

Let's put it thus way.
If the USA got to war with Russia and the Russians manage to hit the US with 100+ nuclear warheads averaging 100kilotons while being utterly destroyed by 500+ US nukes, the Chinese will have won the war.
;)

[NcDeuce]

No military is invincible.

If you beg to differ, visit Arlington.

[TriggerPuller]

The Chinese could not sustain a long term conflict with the U.S.
Quality over quantity.

TP

[Trigger]

China has bodies. That's really it.
If it went nuclear, well then we're all screwed. On a conventional scale though, they have no massive airlift capability nor sealift capability. They also have no real way to project global power as we do with our carriers.
I agree with XASA. It would be ugly but China would lose.

[XASA]

[quote="NcDeuce"]No military is invincible.

If you beg to differ, visit Arlington.[/quote

Perhaps your ongoing college education hasn't got to English 101 yet, but Webster's defines invincible as being "Incapable of being conquered, overrun or subjugated" Do you have another definition I'm not aware of?

BTW, I live five miles from Arlington and have visited it often, and I appreciate the sacrifice those men buried there made.

[UoUo]

I really wnated to ask that from along time ago....UK...Germmany ..
France..

How much tank they have ?
How big is thir airforces ?

[Dalleer]

The name for this topic is pretty strange.

There isn't a military yet in this planet that is completely invincible and there never will.

[Armour recon]

I agree, no army invincible. And this conversation is for people who still read GI JOE!

[Nizark]

Also, china has a complete inability to create any indigenious weaponry that is not a knock of off either A US or Russian design. They couldn't invade Taiwan right now if they wanted to, and if the US wanted to beat them, it wouldn't be too difficult unless we wanted to capture their territory. I'm fairly sure the US Navy could take out the Chinese navy within 2 weeks. Their airforce is a little different though. Air to air, US wins, but the Chinese probably have a ton of fighters just like they have a huge army.

[XASA]

I agree, no army invincible. And this conversation is for people who still read GI JOE!

Thanks for you astute observation. If you would rather discuss Finnish military history or pictures of women in the military I'll keep that in mind the next time I start a thread :P

BTW, I thought GI Joe was a doll. Are there GI Joe books and comics?

[Trigger]

I agree, no army invincible. And this conversation is for people who still read GI JOE!
Good, then see that this is your last useless post in our GI JOE conversation.

[OnTheRocks]

Well, I see it this way;

Every military strategist thought that the soviet union would be defeated quickly by nazi germany, but yea, we all know what happened.


In a purely conventional war I read (can't find the link right now, I'll look for it) that china had some 6 million troops during peacetime, and they also have a large airforce and a seemlingless endless supply of people to conscrpit, I think that they would win in the long run purely because of their numbers, there would be no way to finish them off and the US would become overstreched in the end (just like the germans).

When it comes to discipline and determination US tropps are without doubt some of the finest soldiers in the world, but no western army to my knowledge has ever displayed the kind of determination that many Asian armies have in many conflicts and disreguard for the lives of their soldiers.

For instance the Japanese during WW2 did not know of surrender and thought it better to die than to dishonour their family. I thinik that for every european POW that was taken the ratio was 200:1 or something like that in favour of the japanese. Even when in captivity they revolted in a final act of defiance only got shot or pacified in other ways. (Ghost Soldiers is a really good book about US POW's in the philippines btw, read it!)

The Chinese during the Korean war. Lost over a million men in combat against the US & the UN but carried on.

The Vietnamese against the French during the Dien Bien Phu siege and during the US forces later on for almost 20 years.

Im not really sure of how well the North Koreans did against the US troops but according to some statements made by US soldiers they weren't tall that hot.

reguards
/OTR :)

[stateofequilibrium]

If things go to nuke, the entire world is screeewed. I would suggest watching a movie called "On the Beach" which highlifts a nuclear confrontation between China and the US. Where effectively almost the entire world's population is killed and the rest (mainly Australia) are slowly waiting to die from radiation.

[OnTheRocks]

I think that Nukes aren't the tools of a soldier, but rather that of beurocrats & politicians. So they shouldn't be included in this thread, I mean I know that it would eventually boil down to that in a major conflict, but lets just hope that doesnt ever happen, because otherwise, we're all screwed... :(

*goes back to dig a deeper bombshelter in my basement*

[NcDeuce]

[quote=NcDeuce]No military is invincible.

If you beg to differ, visit Arlington.[/quote

Perhaps your ongoing college education hasn't got to English 101 yet, but Webster's defines invincible as being "Incapable of being conquered, overrun or subjugated" Do you have another definition I'm not aware of?

BTW, I live five miles from Arlington and have visited it often, and I appreciate the sacrifice those men buried there made.

Invincible implies...yes..."incapable of being conquered", etc. It also implies that we cannot be stopped (die).

In terms of being conquered or overrun...we have been defeated in battle before. Overrun: see Takur Ghar, Mogadishu, Mazar-i-Sharif uprising, 507th incident.

[Russian Texan]

On a conventional scale though, they have no massive airlift capability nor sealift capability.

Neither does US, infact no country in the world does. Just look how long it took to deploy forces in Kosovo and Iraq and that was with no air, ground or sea opposition. If US, for some strange reason, decides to invade China it will need a much larger force and Chineese are probably going to do something about it, like shooting missiles at cargo planes and attacking naval vessels.
BTW which country US is going to use as a staging area?

In the case of the all out war (with the use of nuclear weapons) US would "win". Although who has more to lose: a rice eating chineese farmer or an average american...

[NcDeuce]

Just look how long it took to deploy forces in Kosovo and Iraq and that was with no air, ground or sea opposition.

The 101st Airborne Division is supposed to be able to deploy anywhere in the world in 36 hours.

Other units can deploy even more rapidly...some were already there.

[venture160]

guys, you can rest easy for there won't be any conflict for china for years to come. more than 80% of the country is still poverty ridden, and even at china's growth rate now, it will be until 2070 that they reach our average household income of $33,000. As Josephy Nye says in his book (dean of the kennedy school of havard, the NUMBER ONE school for internationnal relations and politics in the world) "In fact, the rise of china is a misnomer" The asian development bank has determined that China will reach 36% of the US' GDP in about 2025, which equal the size of south korea's economy. RAND corp has predicted that by 2005 China's military will have the equivelant of a western european army had in the early 1980's. Its simple, without a highly developed economy your military isn't going to be going anywhere fast. While China in the next 50-100 years most likely wont be able to challenge the United States on a global level, it may be able to make regional descions without the consent of the USA, such as taking Taiwan back. But that seems unlikely as well, for a military conflict with Tainwan would be devastating to China. Its reputation in Asia would be damaged and as a result economic trade would falter. The only reason why I could see China attacking Taiwan is if it was backed into a corner and forced to attack Taiwan if it declares independance, but that too seems unlikely. But a global coalition, or even a limited one, wouldn't have a whole lot of trouble in ending the conflict. as Joseph Nye says: "
How China will behave as its power increases is an open question, but as long as the United States remains present in the region, maintains its relationship with Japan, does not support independence for Taiwan, and exercises its power in a reasonable way, it is unlikely that any country or coalition will successfully challenge its role in the region, much less at the global level. If the United States and China stumble into war or a cold war in East Asia, it will likely be caused bu inept policy related to Taiwan's independence rather than China's success as a global challenger."

[Trident-za]

An odd question here: are there any weapons currently available which produce the electromagnetic pulse of nuclear weapons, without the nuclear bit? I mean, a weapon which would knock out electronic equipment.

I shudder to think what would happen if the US was in a war against a country who had something like this.

[mustamato]

Invincible?

"There have been 596 confirmed coalition deaths, 504 Americans, 56 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of January 22, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths. There also have been 2,904 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon. This list is updated regularly."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

[OnTheRocks]

In the case of the all out war (with the use of nuclear weapons) US would "win". Although who has more to lose: a rice eating chineese farmer or an average american...

Yes this is very true, cultural and social differences also have to be taken into account.

I dont think that the US public would tolerate the kinds of casualties of previous wars in the present day so to be honest unless the war was justified to the extreme (i.e. China invading taiwan and US decides to defend taiwan) I dont think that the USA would be able to be involved in a prolonged conflict with high casualty rates because there is too much at stake.

[Russian Texan]

Just look how long it took to deploy forces in Kosovo and Iraq and that was with no air, ground or sea opposition.

The 101st Airborne Division is supposed to be able to deploy anywhere in the world in 36 hours.

Other units can deploy even more rapidly...some were already there.

"Supposed" is the key word.
I understand the "Hooa" attitude but 101st isn't going to do much against 1.6 billion country. To mount an invasion of China you'd need millions and millions of troops, which US doesn't have.

Overall I do agree with "Venture160" post. It is all hypothetical

[Trigger]

Invincible?

"There have been 596 confirmed coalition deaths, 504 Americans, 56 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of January 22, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths. There also have been 2,904 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon. This list is updated regularly."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
Mustamato almost prematurely ejaculated when he posted this. Down boy.
Invincible?
We haven't turned tail and run in the face of these casualties, as opposed to you who never showed up in the first place.

[XASA]

Invincible?

"There have been 596 confirmed coalition deaths, 504 Americans, 56 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of January 22, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths. There also have been 2,904 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon. This list is updated regularly."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

What do casualties of war have to do with whether or not a branch is "invincible"? Being "invincible" in war doesn't mean no one dies. If anything, your listing confirms the strength of the U.S. military. When was the last time a country as large as Iraq was defeated with so few casualties?

In your previous postings you have made clear your feelings against the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Too bad you can't separate your emotions from your intellect.

[JiJoMacLE45]

I've been gone for a while but, over 500 posts in less than a month, mush-mouth, I can tell I ain't gonna like you.

[Trigger]

Nice uh...avatar there JiJo...
*gouges out own eyes*
rofl

[NcDeuce]

Ron...ay :cantbeli:

[JiJoMacLE45]

We all have to have role models right?

[Jack Mehoff]

Invincible?

"There have been 596 confirmed coalition deaths, 504 Americans, 56 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of January 22, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths. There also have been 2,904 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon. This list is updated regularly."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

I don't get it. What is casualties have anything to do with 'invincible'? Especially 2/3 of that 596 deaths are the results of accidents (vehicle, friendly fire, etc.)

So, do you use your ass for critical thinking?

[JiJoMacLE45]

^
^
^
Somebodies been hittin' the gym.

[JiJoMacLE45]

According to mush-mouth I guess the Normandy invasion was a complete cluster f*ck then.

[Trigger]

^
^
Didn't you hear JiJo?
According to revisionist history 101 we lost WW2.
Geez, keep up man.

*begins Goosestepping*

[Jack Mehoff]

Or the Roman empire wasn't invincible because they lost more than 500 men

[JiJoMacLE45]

Your right buddy, how dare I forget to pledge my allegiance to the hinterland.

[Jack Mehoff]

^
^
^
Somebodies been hittin' the gym.

Somebody doesn't shave

[venture160]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375758119/qid=1074889195/sr=12-2/104-4047755-0993538?v=glance&s=books

well according to edward gibbon, the premier historian on the roman empire, it wasn't invincible either, but they sure thought they were at the time :roll:

i had to read that book for my roman empire class. it was one hell of a book, although its big, a couple thousand pages if you read all the volumes. but if you read politics and international relations journals or books he qouted in almost every other one you read.

[Jack Mehoff]

What i meant was the Roman was invincible at their peak

[venture160]

What i meant was the Roman was invincible at their peak


oh yeah then i totally agree with you

[2Sheds_Jackson]

An odd question here: are there any weapons currently available which produce the electromagnetic pulse of nuclear weapons, without the nuclear bit? I mean, a weapon which would knock out electronic equipment.

I shudder to think what would happen if the US was in a war against a country who had something like this.

The short answer: currently no. To get EMP/HEMP etc over a large area, you still need a nuclear detonation. My guess would be that by now DARPA has some stuff in the works, but nothing deployed. But here's an interesting read from popularmechanics.com from 2001 (most recent I could find) full story at http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml



E-Bomb
The first major test of an American electromagnetic bomb is scheduled for next year. Ultimately, the Army hopes to use E-bomb technology to explode artillery shells in midflight. The Navy wants to use the E-bomb's high-power microwave pulses to neutralize antiship missiles. And, the Air Force plans to equip its bombers, strike fighters, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles with E-bomb capabilities. When fielded, these will be among the most technologically sophisticated weapons the U.S. military establishment has ever built.

[AFACadet]

We have better, more effective, and actually used ways of frying enemy electronics.


I'm sure if you do a google, you can find more information.



venture160,
Since you read Gibbons, you should know then that the Roman Empire crumbled from the inside out.

In fact, that's how all major powers fall, they crumble from the inside. Then they become weak enough that outside forces can overwelm them.

[venture160]

afa cadet, im well aware of that, how did you like the book? I think its one of the best historical books i've ever read.

[One?]

History teaches that no matter how big your empire or army is it will be crushed. Sometimes they think they are invincible, do something which turns out to be fatal.

[AFACadet]

afa cadet, im well aware of that, how did you like the book? I think its one of the best historical books i've ever read.


:oops: I've never actually read the book itself, but I've learned a lot about Gibbins and about his series of books, their effects on history/the way people look at history and his findings.

Since I'm a Military History Major, it was a required class (learned about the historians that made the biggest impact on the world, what they wrote, what each of their major works was about, and how it affected the world/outlook on history).



I may get the courage to actually read the series one of these days!!!



Although I did accidently get an extremely condensed version in paperback, so instead of taking it back, I may just keep it to get a taste of the series.

[Flagg]

"In fact, the rise of china is a misnomer" The asian development bank has determined that China will reach 36% of the US' GDP in about 2025, which equal the size of south korea's economy. RAND corp has predicted that by 2005 China's military will have the equivelant of a western european army had in the early 1980's. Its simple, without a highly developed economy your military isn't going to be going anywhere fast. While China in the next 50-100 years most likely wont be able to challenge the United States on a global level, it may be able to make regional descions without the consent of the USA, such as taking Taiwan back.

I disagree........

Here's why:

I think it's clear the US is globally dominant in any likely conventional war conflict. It's also likely this will continue for the FORESEEABLE future.

A couple of things to keep in mind....especially considering the Roman Empire analogies and "economic warfare":

US economy is running a HUGE deficit.....in effect the US is 'selling off" it's net worth at the rate of 1% point per annum and US personal savings rates are terrible, and a social security "hangover" measured in the tens of trillions...anyone doubt this, read up on Warren Buffett.....at the same time China is benefitting from unprecedented growth and investment(look at the US-China trade deficit).

At the same time.....The US is paying the massive(multi-hundred billion$$)global bill to keep the world safe and likely facing needed infrastructure cutbacks at home....while China reaps the benefits like every other country for FREE and focuses on investing it it's internal growth and infrastructure.

The OECD projects China will have GDP parity with the US in 2020. Since a sustainable level of military funding is a factor of GDP this implies China will be able to fund an equivalent level of military funding to the US.

How did the US "beat" the Soviet Union? Reagan's military buildup and Russia's attempt to keep up resulted in the Soviet Union imploding.

The biggest economy will likely "win" since it can sustain a bigger military.

Read some history...China had an incredibly complex and advanced society/economy that rivalled anything in it's day......mostly internal issues temporarily halted China's advance.

Another problem is the US(and all western democracies) tendency to focus on the short-term to the detriment of the long-term......people have to get re-elected right?

China doesn't have that "problem" and tends to plan for the long-term..which has many advantages.

With the fastest growing large economy in the world acting as the world's manufacturing centre, with the highest personal savings rate in the world and an homogenous population.....expect China to become a major player in global events in our lifetime.

I doubt the Chinese would be stupid enough to attempt to face the US head on...they'll likely be happy with the US saving the world and footing the bill..while they focus on "winning" economically.

ALso of note.....keep an eye on the Spratley Islands dispute in Asia(China,Vietnam,Phillipines all want them)......with the US action in the Middle East it could be quite difficult for the US to dispute China's efforts to secure it's own strategic resources(oil&gas) so close to China's shores.

[AFACadet]

Flagg,


Good job on your assessment.


I just need to have faith that while I'm helping to take care of the militay, the civilian guys will take care of their part.

[TriggerPuller]

[quote="XASA"][quote=NcDeuce]No military is invincible.

If you beg to differ, visit Arlington.[/quote


In terms of being conquered or overrun...we have been defeated in battle before. Overrun: see Takur Ghar, Mogadishu, Mazar-i-Sharif uprising, 507th incident. Mogadishu? Well we did kill about 2,000 and they killed 19 of us,the media made it into sounding like we lost the battle but Id say those kill ratio differences are significantly in our favor! Mazar-e Shariff cmon we had 2 american SOG SAD officers interrogating hundreds of prisoners the goddamn northern Alliance didnt even check the taliban for weapons. This was hardly a battle field loss by any standards. I dont know Takur Ghar. The 507th they were in a convoy they werent combatants,not a very good analogy. I guess according to you if we have one US casualty we have lost the battle and the war is that it? not a flame just having a hard time connecting the examples to being battlefield losses.

TP

[cut]

[quote=XASA][quote=NcDeuce]No military is invincible.

If you beg to differ, visit Arlington.[/quote


In terms of being conquered or overrun...we have been defeated in battle before. Overrun: see Takur Ghar, Mogadishu, Mazar-i-Sharif uprising, 507th incident. Mogadishu? Well we did kill about 2,000 and they killed 19 of us,the media made it into sounding like we lost the battle but Id say those kill ratio differences are significantly in our favor! Mazar-e Shariff cmon we had 2 american SOG SAD officers interrogating hundreds of prisoners the goddamn northern Alliance didnt even check the taliban for weapons. This was hardly a battle field loss by any standards. I dont know Takur Ghar. The 507th they were in a convoy they werent combatants,not a very good analogy. I guess according to you if we have one US casualty we have lost the battle and the war is that it? not a flame just having a hard time connecting the examples to being battlefield losses.

TP

Mogadishu wasn't a defeat, but it did show the US "special forces" specifically the Rangers were not invicible, if not in the minds of the Rangers themselves in the minds of the politicians (hence the withdrawl) which unfortunately for you guys overules military opinion.

[admar2]

no matter how big the Chinese Army is, they don't have the capability of projecting power across that big ocean that seperates us.

nor will they for the near future.

[cut]

no matter how big the Chinese Army is, they don't have the capability of projecting power across that big ocean that seperates us.

nor will they for the near future.

prhaps not but they have the power to stop you projecting power in their country

[venture160]

some valid points, from now on lets talk about china in this thread...


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7756

[TriggerPuller]

[quote=XASA][quote=NcDeuce]No military is invincible.

If you beg to differ, visit Arlington.[/quote


In terms of being conquered or overrun...we have been defeated in battle before. Overrun: see Takur Ghar, Mogadishu, Mazar-i-Sharif uprising, 507th incident. Mogadishu? Well we did kill about 2,000 and they killed 19 of us,the media made it into sounding like we lost the battle but Id say those kill ratio differences are significantly in our favor! Mazar-e Shariff cmon we had 2 american SOG SAD officers interrogating hundreds of prisoners the goddamn northern Alliance didnt even check the taliban for weapons. This was hardly a battle field loss by any standards. I dont know Takur Ghar. The 507th they were in a convoy they werent combatants,not a very good analogy. I guess according to you if we have one US casualty we have lost the battle and the war is that it? not a flame just having a hard time connecting the examples to being battlefield losses.

TP

Mogadishu wasn't a defeat, but it did show the US "special forces" specifically the Rangers were not invicible, if not in the minds of the Rangers themselves in the minds of the politicians (hence the withdrawl) which unfortunately for you guys overules military opinion.Rangers are SoF not SF.There is a huge difference.
TP

[TriggerPuller]

some valid points, from now on lets talk about china in this thread...


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7756Uhh OK aye aye Sir!!!! F**king armchair warriors!

TP

[ibstolidude]

oh yeah!

Well, my dad can kick your dad's ass!!

na-na na-na boo-boo

[cut]

some valid points, from now on lets talk about china in this thread...


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7756Uhh OK aye aye Sir!!!! F**king armchair warriors!

TP

armchair generals or politicitians maybe.. but not warriors, there's no need to be demeaning.


besides the world is controlled by armchair warriors.

[seventy6er]

I really wnated to ask that from along time ago....UK...Germmany ..
France..

How much tank they have ?
How big is thir airforces ?

I can only speak for Germany.

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2_kws-001g.jpg

We had 2.437 Leopard1 and 2.125 Leopard2; we also had 1.692 M-48A2GA2, so at the end of the 80s, we had well over 5.000 MBT's....

Nowadays, we only got our Leo2 in versions A4 - A6... The Last Leo1's (A5) have been phased out last year.

350 of the Leo's will have the A6-configuration.

Compared to France and the UK, Germany got the biggest (modern) MBT-fleet of western-nations (after the US of A). But we really don't need that many tanks. There exist plans to leave only about 800 in service.

About the airforce. Don't know how much jets we have. I think 356 Tornados, nearly 200 F-4 Phantom. It is planned to procure 180 Eurofighter Typhoon.

[venture160]

trigger without politicians and policy makers the military wouldn't be possible

[Ballistic]

More concerned about North Korea, than I am about China.

Are we talking about just these two nations going at it ? Or does it involve allied nations aswell ?

[TriggerPuller]

trigger without politicians and policy makers the military wouldn't be possibleMe? Whats your point? I was making a rebuttal to a statement that was made regarding the US getting overrun then you came in and said lets get back to China! You do what you gotta do but dont ever tell me what to do! Stupid f**king subject anyway, just another feeble attempt to argue "who has got the best whatever"!!

TP

[Nizark]

More concerned about North Korea, than I am about China.

Are we talking about just these two nations going at it ? Or does it involve allied nations aswell ?

Without doubt, NK is more of a threat than China. But think of it like this, if China and the US go to war, Japan, South Korea, and probably Taiwan would be involved in some way. And China would have NK and possibly Russia. But with Russia in it, maybe NATO will be activated, along with the CIS and our forces within them, it could snowball into a real WWIII.

But thats just my opinion, i could be wrong.

[Flagg]

And China would have NK and possibly Russia. But with Russia in it, maybe NATO will be activated, along with the CIS and our forces within them, it could snowball into a real WWIII.

You may wish to read up on Russian/Soviet relations with China during the last 50 odd years.

I think you'll be surprised to learn about border disputes between the two nations that erupted into quite large-scale engagements....during a period when the West thought they were conspiring to take over the free world.

I think the former Soviet states have more in common and less to fear from the US than China....just my .02 cents

[James]

I don't think that the U.S. Military is invincible.

[martinexsquaddie]

i think china's happy to let NK yank the USA's chain as long as it likes.
But if it decides to try anything for real the PLA will affect regimne change. a couple of million troops come over the horizon resistance is futile :(

[Midav]

Powerful? Yup. But, nope, not invincible.

US peronnel bleed just like anyone else. To be where they are right now, a lot of blood had been shed in the past.

[Flagg]

I think our national leadership and our population might be, though.

It's great to have pride in one's leaders and fellow citizens, but have you ever stopped to think that people from other societies and nations may take offense and consider your statement to be quite arrogant....even if it wasn't your intention.

Keep in mind that societies have risen and fallen throughout the history of man.....I suspect many members of past dominant nations felt the same way as you......right up until their society/nation became irrelevent and doomed to be a footnote in history.

Arrogance breeds complacency....while the humble gather their strength

[radon]

Usa has fouhgt wars against poor countries in the last decades. A more equal fight would get not as nice for the Americans, like the last wars. Occupying China would be something... But what about Us vs France? :cantbeli:

[Jack Mehoff]

Usa has fouhgt wars against poor countries in the last decades. A more equal fight would get not as nice for the Americans, like the last wars. Occupying China would be something... But what about Us vs France? :cantbeli:

GW1, Iraq was poor? rofl

During Korean War, the Chinese and Russia both actively supported NK. Poor you said?

[Bushy]

Depends on who is in office.

[mocking_loudly_died]

"who has got the best whatever"!!

I have the best red socks.

[Seiyuuki]

Kelly Hu...very nice!!!

[minotaur161]

I think the U S of A will remain the top world power for at least another 100 years, a war of a thousand cuts has been waged against America for a long time, but superpowers are very resilient, only conquest will destroy her, as with Rome, catch is that modern warfare is too deadly for any other power to contemplate conquest even if they felt they had the resources and manpower to do so. I feel only a shift in ideology from within might reduce her power as we have seen in Russia, States in Russia moved for independence and although her power is diminished she is still not to be be messed with lightly. My view is that America is not invincible as we have seen in Vietnam but overall America is invincible enough not to be overrun. and to be able to exert it's influence like no other.

[JBH22]

True....

Usa army is the most powerfull army in the world...no dout.

woot

IMO only Russia can stand up to USA,china is coming but its still need some technology.
Russia is the only country that can produce most systems that USA possesss plus the legacy of the coldwar Russia has the largest nuclear stockpile though it lags far behind in demographics and economy.

[Othree52]

Invincible?

"There have been 596 confirmed coalition deaths, 504 Americans, 56 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of January 22, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths. There also have been 2,904 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon. This list is updated regularly."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

idiot! Moron! Dumbass!
To equate the sacrifices of our hero's to your own personal in justifications is repulsive! God help me if your rejectable type gives me the bird in the fast lane.

Go back to the Huffington Post. com and stay there, your much more welcome with the pacifists.

I'll take my second infraction now sir...

[dttk0009]

Of course it's not invincible.

[Sootan]

This thread is invincible....:cantbeli:

[brokenlegdrunk]

what happened in 1975?

[DID]

US army is the strongest on the world actually, this is a fact and nobody will tell the opposit (maybe some nationalistic...) But history learn that no army still in the centuries invincible so this question stay with no rationnal answer. About China a war between the two states is impossible because the two are mutual first commercial and economic partner...

[Kap]

idiot! Moron! Dumbass!
To equate the sacrifices of our hero's to your own personal in justifications is repulsive! God help me if your rejectable type gives me the bird in the fast lane.

Go back to the Huffington Post. com and stay there, your much more welcome with the pacifists.

I'll take my second infraction now sir...

It is safe to say this guy no longer posts on this forum... I doubt you will get an infraction for it.

[Tank34]

Afghanistan will be the definitive proof. Afghans kicked Red Army's asses, and will kick NATO's asses too.

Talibs now do not have modern weapons, money and backup of strong countries as was during soviet intervention.

And Red Army was not kicked, it is betrayal of our own elite and that Gorbachev come to power lead us to leave Afghanistan. Actually pro soviet goverment were stable even without help of USSR it is was capable to withstand against talibs for some years.

[digrar]

idiot! Moron! Dumbass!
To equate the sacrifices of our hero's to your own personal in justifications is repulsive! God help me if your rejectable type gives me the bird in the fast lane.

Go back to the Huffington Post. com and stay there, your much more welcome with the pacifists.

I'll take my second infraction now sir...

There is nothing quite like raging at someone who hasn't been on the site for nearly 6 years.

[brokenlegdrunk]

An helicoper left a building top while a lot of oriental guys hardly kicking some occidental asses.


US combat operations ceased in 1973 after relentless US bombing of Hanoi forced North Vietnam to sign the Paris Peace Accords... so Americans evacuating embassy crew and south Vietnamese civilians 2 years after they stopped fighting good to know

[DID]

To me the US military is too mechanized and technologically addicted. This for now is considered an advantage, but it can become a gap in a while.

To me one of the main problems is that US Defense is daily summegred by US industry gadgets (mostly unuseful) and they have to buy a lot of this unuseful things, because US economy is a war economy.
agree with you, we can describe US Army as the famous Greek mythology hero Achilles and he's Heel that could be compare to the omnipresent technology in modern armies. Let destroy satellite for example and all the military system collapse, and cannot affront even a bunch of talibans...

[hogdriver]

agree with you, we can describe US Army as the famous Greek mythology hero Achilles and he's Heel that could be compare to the omnipresent technology in modern armies. Let destroy satellite for example and all the military system collapse, and cannot affront even a bunch of talibans...

because every citizen can be taliban..:roll:

[minotaur161]

agree with you, we can describe US Army as the famous Greek mythology hero Achilles and he's Heel that could be compare to the omnipresent technology in modern armies. Let destroy satellite for example and all the military system collapse, and cannot affront even a bunch of talibans...

You have a good point here as regards technology, talking about satellites and achilles heel, I read a little about the effects of bursting nuclear warheads in space and the effects on electromagnetic's above and below, ie space and the area of earth beneath that burst, can anyone expand on this? assuming that a nation has the technology to launch a number of such a technologically advanced weapon of course.

[Lethal Lou]

The challenge is obtaining logistical leverage. The Rangers, Delta, 82nd etc can be anywhere in 24 hours - but - then you have to support them. At a minimum you need an airhead capable of handling 747F's. The logistical tail on the US Army forces is huge. And we are only talking light infantry here. Throw armor/artillery in the mix and now you need a port. Then there are all the Status of Forces Agreements to negotiate movement of your resupplies to the point of operations. Getting the pokey end of the stick on site is easy - keeping it there, supplied adequately is where the challenge is. Especially if there is coordinated action against your supply line by the opposition.

That being said, presuming non-nuclear (non-bio, non-chem, no EMP/HERF guns, no blinding laser weapons - eg boring old conventional war) then there are a number of locations where the US would be unlikely to be able to logistically coordinate assets for sufficient duration to obtain an unconditional surrender. Not just the obvious ones like China, Russia, India but others where politics/geography/demographics mitigate the opportunities for success. Examples: Israel, New Guinea, Indonesia, the UK, Switzerland; I'm certain you can think of others.

[Rigbonn]

There was a day I was imaging the whole world turning it's back against the U.S.
What would be the consequences in your opinion?

[AtlasString]

the US Army is fighting the taliban since 2001,,,, and Helmend stills in the hand of the rebels...,half of afghanistan either ,and 2009 + 2010 were the most bloodiest years for the US ARMY there...
it's a strong army,of course...and if we looked at the strength of it in a major war, i can say that it's a brutal army....
but if The USA went to war with russia or china ??....well........i don't think that it will be ( INVINCIBLE ) :)

[*zeven*]

I'm deeply impressed that this thread has gone on for 7 pages, when the answer have been stated more than once already.
No army is and no army never will be!