Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on July 16, 2006, 01:58:19 PM
-
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Simple, they want to erase Israel off the map. I can see it now, Israel will launch a ground offensive into Lebanon and Syria will come to the aid. Israel will in turn bomb targets around Syria and because of this, Iran will launch Scuds and what not at Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Because of that, the US will launch air strikes on Syria and Iran, then Iran will launch a ground invasion of Iraq and Afganistan pushing US forces out.
Can you say draft........................ ...
Which, by the way, i support! :aok
Victory to Israel, US and their allies!!!
-
Israel's determination to survive and not allow itself to be annihiliated is thuggish and racist. If they truly believed in peace, they'd walk into the ocean and drown.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
Thinking? Whatever gave you the idea that they are thinking?
-
...........Beware the beast-man, for he is the devil's pawn, alone among God's apes. He will kill for sport, or lust, or greed
Today he will kill his brother to take his land and property
Let him not breed in great numbers,
for he will make a desert of his home, and yours.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Israel's determination to survive and not allow itself to be annihiliated is thuggish and racist. If they truly believed in peace, they'd walk into the ocean and drown.
The last time they tried that..someone parted it for them.:rofl
-
Peace through education and prosperity.
Of course if that doesnt work, let the working class go fight our war!
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
Simple, they want to erase Israel off the map. I can see it now, Israel will launch a ground offensive into Lebanon and Syria will come to the aid. Israel will in turn bomb targets around Syria and because of this, Iran will launch Scuds and what not at Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Because of that, the US will launch air strikes on Syria and Iran, then Iran will launch a ground invasion of Iraq and Afganistan pushing US forces out.
Can you say draft........................ ...
Which, by the way, i support! :aok
Victory to Israel, US and their allies!!!
EagleEyes
First off I don’t believe the scenario you describe would happen. Israel is by far the pre-eminent military power in the Middle East and could defeat the combined forces of Syria and Iran.
Second push us out of Iraq and Afghanistan do you know who we are and what we are capable of. We are not only the most powerful nation on Earth at this moment we are the most powerful nation in the history of the world when compared to the rest of the world.
Before 9-11 the US spent in the neighborhood of 326 Billion every year on defense, the rest of the world combined Russia, China, England and every other nation big and small spent a combined total of around 100 Billion. (I had looked up the figures sometime around 2000 but these are from memory so when someone does a search and says I was off 10 Billion or so ok you got me) anyway.
Contrary to all the negative hype about the war, and the fact that the loss of even one solider is indeed tragic, we have lost 2500 + soldiers in a war that in November of this year will have been as long as US involvement in WWII. We had battles in that war that started at 6:00am and by 10:00 am that morning we had lost more men than that.
The US against any or all the Middle East countries would be like one of those Sci-Fi movies where the aliens with their advanced tech come to earth and the poor earthlings are powerless against them. (We saw a preview it was called the Gulf war, it was against the most powerful Arab country at that time remember)
Third a draft why? Our soldiers are brave well trained performing unbelievable well and committed to their mission. In the field re-enlistment is at an all time high. The left in this country may want to cut and run but the majority of our men in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t.
Oh and when someone claims that the re-enlistment rate I state is false just did a search here is a New York Post article on it.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/52321.htm
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
uvwpvW
Just had to make me do some work. Ok yea my numbers were off a bit, like I said looked the info up quite a while back to prove a point to some guys at work, which by the way goes to your other contention about Britain and the Romans.
If you take nukes out of the equation and since the US has 67,000 ready warheads and around 30,000 ready reserves the Russians somewhat less but nearly as many, China around 50 France around 7 but I think I heard they did or were going to dismantle theirs Israel like 7. And so on, and again I looked this info up around the same time as the other info but it’s relatively close. I don’t think a Nuke war would happen and so did not include it as part of my thought in the 1st post and that is the only thing you could mean about destroy us...
So when Rome was at the height of its power it could take any 1, 2 maybe 3 enemies at the same time but not all enemies at once. Britain same story height of power could take France sure, Spain yea, Germany again yea Sweden yea all at once probably not. The US now vs. rest of the world combined (no nukes mind you) yea we would win.
I know this flies in the face of the lefts mantra they don’t think we can run guard duty on a bunch of poorly armed insurgents and clean up after a hurricane without “stretching our forces to thin” but the truth is we have staffed for and planned for two “real wars” in two fronts on opposite sides of the planet and by real wars I mean like the former USSR and China would have been at the same time kind of war.
Did some research on the numbers found them all over the place depending on the source? One said 2004 US-405B, 2005 China-29.9B, 2004 Russia-19B same article also stated US spends more than the combined total of the next 32 most powerful nations. Another had quite different numbers at this link http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Either way doesn’t look like Iran and Syria are going to take us.
And I guess since Iran and Iraq’s 8 year war ended in a tie we were both right about the most powerful Arab Nation in the early 90’s
-
Gunston you are wrong, Britain regularly took on multiple countires and won. Britiain fought in more than 100 wars between 1800 to 1900. At one stage Britain was the world's only industrialised power, producing 30% of the worlds goods, her empire covering a quarter of the globe.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
If you take nukes out of the equation …
“If you take nukes out of the equation” is a nonsensical premise if we are discussing the military powers of today. Nuclear weapons practically negate all conventional forces and make a nation unconquerable. Anyone thinking that today’s nuclear powers would not use their WMD to defend themselves against a superior conventional force would be gravely mistaken.
Originally posted by Gunston
… and since the US has 67,000 ready warheads and around 30,000 ready reserves the Russians somewhat less but nearly as many, China around 50 France around 7 but I think I heard they did or were going to dismantle theirs Israel like 7. And so on, and again I looked this info up around the same time as the other info but it?s relatively close. I don?t think a Nuke war would happen and so did not include it as part of my thought in the 1st post and that is the only thing you could mean about destroy us...
Where do you dig up your fantasy numbers?
France has 60 TN81 tactical nuclear bombs used on their Mirage 2000 fighters, 192 TN70/71 and 192 TN75 nuclear warheads on their M4A/B and M45 SLBMs respectively, and 20 TN81 warheads carried by Super Etendards on their carrier. That’s 464 nuclear warheads – more than enough to practically destroy any country in the world.
Britain’s got 180 operational warheads on their D-5 Trident II SLBM’s.
China’s got 18 DF-5 (NATO designation: CSS-4) ICBMs, 12 DF-4 (CSS-3) ICBMs, and 50-100 DF-3 (CSS-2) and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs). Most of these missiles are armed with 3-5 megaton warheads.
India is estimated to have a stockpile of 40-50 assembled nuclear warheads and both planes and missiles to deliver them up to 2000+ miles.
Pakistan’s arsenal is estimated to be between 30-55 warheads.
Originally posted by Gunston
So when Rome was at the height of its power it could take any 1, 2 maybe 3 enemies at the same time but not all enemies at once. Britain same story height of power could take France sure, Spain yea, Germany again yea Sweden yea all at once probably not. The US now vs. rest of the world combined (no nukes mind you) yea we would win.
The US can defend itself against a conventional attack by the rest of the world. However offensively America doesn’t stand a chance in conquering the world. It would most likely be unable to defeat the Europeans alone, to say nothing of Russia, China and India and their literally billions of soldiers.
Originally posted by Gunston
I know this flies in the face of the lefts mantra they don?t think we can run guard duty on a bunch of poorly armed insurgents and clean up after a hurricane without ?stretching our forces to thin? but the truth is we have staffed for and planned for two ?real wars? in two fronts on opposite sides of the planet and by real wars I mean like the former USSR and China would have been at the same time kind of war.
It is true that the US has planned capabilities for fighting two different regional conflicts at the same time. A war with the Soviets and China is not a regional conflict, but a world war. Alone the US would stand little chance of winning. Even with the help of NATO the Soviets would have had a 10 to 1 advantage in material and men in a 1980’s WWIII scenario. Throw in a billion troops from China and you have a hopeless scenario.
Originally posted by Gunston
And I guess since Iran and Iraq?s 8 year war ended in a tie we were both right about the most powerful Arab Nation in the early 90?s
Iraq invaded Iran and failed. Iran won.
-
this world needs about a billion less muslims before they kill us all. Go Isreal
-
All I know is that a little man a couple hundred miles north of me is muttering "curses foired again!" because NK has been trumped once again on the front page.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
.
Breaking news: Israel just sent ground troops into Lebanon.
Originally posted by uvwpvW I’m afraid that honor goes to the Roman and British empires. Today many countries have the ability to destroy America.
Don't even say China (hit the Three Gorges Dam and that country is on it's knees with almost 10 million dead in one airstrike). So now we have that one out of the way, who can? Canada, no, no, wait Iran? You need to set down the crack pipe and step back.
-
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Yes 10 million dead is a huge setback for a nation of 1.4 billion *lol*.
Nations that currently can destroy America in a matter of minutes: Russia, China, France and The United Kingdom.
I’ll put down my crack pipe if you give me some of what you’re smoking. That watermelon must be great!
You obviously have no inclination as to what that dam systems supports. Google it, China's back would be broken. Please stop posting in this thread. 1.4 billion people would not be fighting.
-
Please stop posting in this thread.
everyone who dissagrees with Karaya, SHUT UP NOW!!! or...or.... errr.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
everyone who dissagrees with Karaya, SHUT UP NOW!!! or...or.... errr.
:rofl
Not quite like that. The Three Rivers Gorge Dam System is a LARGE part of the Chinese Machine. Look at a population map of China, the Yangtze IS the backbone of China. If whatever his handle is, cannot use his nagen and only come up with "EagleEyes is a child". Well that makes EagleEyes look smart.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You obviously have no inclination as to what that dam systems supports. Google it, China's back would be broken. Please stop posting in this thread. 1.4 billion people would not be fighting.
What possible bearing does that have on this discussion? China still can destroy America within minutes.
Originally posted by Masherbrum
If whatever his handle is…
Not smart enough to figure it out? No surprise.
Originally posted by Masherbrum
…cannot use his nagen and only come up with "EagleEyes is a child". Well that makes EagleEyes look smart.
Are you his mother? You sure act the part.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
What possible bearing does that have on this discussion? China still can destroy America within minutes.
China has what, 17 DF-5/5A ICBMs? What definition of 'destroy america within minutes' are you using?
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
What possible bearing does that have on this discussion? China still can destroy America within minutes.
I'm not the one who stated "Today many countries have the ability to destroy America." You did. So please tell me what this point was in the first place since we were talking about the Middle East. I merely countered your OPINION, with a FACT that has more impact and bearing.
Again, please stop posting. I'm beginning to think that Prometheus is your handle.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
China has what, 17 DF-5/5A ICBMs? What definition of 'destroy america within minutes' are you using?
They have 18 DF5s capable of reaching anywhere in the US, and 12 DF4s that can reach the west coast. Each carrying a 3-5 megaton warhead. So what I mean by “destroy America” is the vaporization of 18 east coast and central/south population centers and 12 west coast population centers. The rest of the country would be radiated – the severity depending on weather conditions. For all intents and purposes America would be destroyed.
Granted, the destruction would not be as complete as if Russia, France or Britain attacked.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
I believe Iran was the most powerful Arab nation, then and now. Not that I think the result would be any different.
Iran is not Arab, Iran is Persian
so take that Mr smartypants.:p
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
See Rule #4
Ok, if you wanted to keep things between the two of you, then you should have PM'd him.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Iran is not Arab, Iran is Persian
so take that Mr smartypants.:p
HA!
I stand corrected.
-
let me see if i got this right. 1/2 of chinas exports go to the USA so china is going to destroy 1/2 of it's export market with nukes?
oh brother , you need to get into the 21st century.
-
china doesn't need WMD to f*** us. All they needs is to get every citysen to stomp their feet at the same time... think about it, a brazillion chinese going "thump thump"... we're doomed DOOMED!!!
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Ok, if you wanted to keep things between the two of you, then you should have PM'd him.
Why would I want to “keep things” between him and me? He posted an argument on a public forum and I responded to it. That’s how these “things” work. You are free to respond to any of my posts if you want to, but please in the future read the whole thread and try to make rational arguments.
-
A VERY recent update:
Red Alert: Confusion Before the Storm
There was some major confusion a couple of hours ago. First, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman told the wire services that Israeli troops had entered southern Lebanon. Then IDF officials denied it. Then it was announced that bulldozers had gone in and had been withdrawn. We went from thinking the invasion had begun to that it hadn't to "what in the world is going on?"
Our best guess at the moment is that the bulldozers went in to clear mines and other obstacles prior to the main body of Israeli forces crossing over tonight. Another explanation might be that this was a probe designed to draw Hezbollah fire. The Israelis are clearly worried that Hezbollah has obtained advanced weaponry from Iran via the sea and Syria. They don't seem to be sure what has arrived and what has deployed with Hezbollah forces, but they don't want to push across the border only to have their armor caught in a hail of advanced anti-tank missiles or trapped by advanced anti-tank mines. There also could be an element of psychological warfare in this confusion. Hezbollah knows Israel is coming but doesn't know when -- and Israel wants to rattle its fighters as much as possible.
All of this is possible, but the fact is that major Israeli forces have not crossed the border into Lebanon as of afternoon July 17, local time. The Israelis did announce they were calling up a reserve division over the weekend. Meanwhile, Israeli aircraft are continuing intense operations over Lebanon. More Hezbollah rockets started hitting Israel after daybreak July 17. This obviously creates some urgency for the Israelis. The airstrikes have not succeeded in shutting down rockets that can reach as far as Haifa, and the Israelis have acknowledged that Tel Aviv is at risk as well. Therefore, where we have expected Israel to move as soon as possible, it has not yet committed forces on the ground.
One explanation could be that the Israelis simply are not ready to move yet. Deploying a force suitable for the mission takes time. The call-up of the reserve division by headquarters indicates that this is to be a substantial operation. The Israelis might not want ground forces to go until they are completely ready, and thus are prepared to absorb the additional hours or days of missile attack to make sure the attack is decisive.
A second possible explanation is that although the Israelis have lost any element of strategic surprise -- Hezbollah certainly knows they are coming -- they are hoping for some tactical surprise. The longer they delay, the less certain and more weary Hezbollah becomes. It is not clear, however, whether the advantage tied to any possibility of tactical surprise is worth the incoming missiles.
Third, it could be that the air campaign is not yet complete. Israel, like the United States, likes to shape the battlefield by running extensive air campaigns. There could be too many targets for such a campaign to have run its course yet, or the targets might be more robust than expected. The Israelis could be hunting for the longer-range missiles that Hezbollah has, fearing that an invasion before these are destroyed would invite a launch at Tel Aviv -- something they don't want to see.
Yet another reason for the delay might be something that Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted at July 16, when he said Russians had been negotiating for the release of the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and that he did not feel the negotiations had been unsuccessful. Israel does want the soldiers returned. But while Hamas might consider releasing the captives in its custody, it is hard to believe Hezbollah would -- not if, after releasing them, Hezbollah would still face attacks.
There is massive diplomacy under way, and Israel is doing well. Not only is the United States lining up with Israel, but the sense at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, was much less hostile to Israel than normal. In addition, both the Saudis and Egyptians have made it clear that they hold Hezbollah responsible for what has happened. Given this, it is not inconceivable that some diplomatic process is actually moving forward.
The problem with that scenario is that any diplomatic settlement to the crisis not only would preserve Hezbollah in some way, but would depend on Hezbollah implementing an agreement. The Israelis see the situation that has erupted in recent days as a rare opportunity to deal with Hezbollah, and they have no trust in diplomatic arrangements or their enforcement by mediators. They do want their soldiers back, but not at the risk of leaving Hezbollah in place.
The fighting is hardly tapering off. Israel's aircraft are ranging over Lebanon, a blockade is in place, and Hezbollah is firing at northern Israel quite effectively. Israel will not willingly leave Hezbollah in place while it has such capabilities. The Israelis might leave all this to airpower, but the fact is that the Israeli army has no confidence in the air force's ability to definitively destroy Hezbollah. The view is that, in the end, they will have to go in on the ground.
It is interesting to note, however, that the United States is being surprisingly relaxed about getting American citizens out of Beirut. Obviously, it can't get everyone out, but unlike other countries, the United States has been slow to move, in spite of the obvious risk of hostage-taking. U.S. Embassy officials in Beirut seem to be acting as if they have more time -- and certainly the United States knows if and when Israel is going to invade.
Our view is this: Israel will not accept the bombardment that is under way. Any cease-fire, from the Israeli point of view, would simply be a postponement of the issue. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government does not have the political freedom for action that a cease-fire requires. There is rare consensus in Israel that Hezbollah must be attacked. If Olmert settles for a diplomatic solution, he will have serious problems in the Knesset.
Therefore, it follows that the most likely explanation for the delay in a ground assault is that the Israelis are going to take some more time in deploying their forces at the border, allow the air campaign to continue for another day or two, accept the civilian casualties from Hezbollah's rockets and strike back some time this week. But with those rockets coming in, they don't have that many days to wait. Israel's government is not fractious. There is no sense of unease about the situation. Therefore, we have to stay with the view that a broader ground attack is likely early this week.
-
Originally posted by john9001
let me see if i got this right. 1/2 of chinas exports go to the USA so china is going to destroy 1/2 of it's export market with nukes?
oh brother , you need to get into the 21st century.
Aren’t there ANY people here that can follow a discussion? Please read the whole thread.
-
uvwpvW
Again you make me work, ok my memory from 5 years ago was wrong (and for some reason biased in favor of the US go figure that, and both the US and Russia have decreased their numbers substantially since that time) but some searching comes up with the following info.
Quote
The five major nuclear powers currently have more than 20,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenals, as shown in the table at right. But this does not include a number of intact Russian nuclear warheads of indeterminate status--possibly as many as 10,000. Of the more than 30,000 intact warheads belonging to the world's eight nuclear weapon states, the vast majority (96 percent) are in U.S. or Russian stockpiles. About 17,500 of these warheads are considered operational. The rest are in reserve or retired and awaiting dismantlement.
We estimate that since 1945, more than 128,000 nuclear warheads have been built worldwide--all but 2 percent of them by the United States (55 percent) and the Soviet Union or Russia (43 percent). Since the Cold War ended, more and more warheads in U.S. and Russian stockpiles are being moved from operational status into various reserve, inactive, or contingency categories. The destruction of warheads is not required under current arms control agreements. For example, the 2002 Moscow Treaty (the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty) contains no verification provisions and completely ignores non-operational and non-strategic warheads. The result is that stockpiles are more opaque and more difficult to describe with precision.
Again my numbers from memory were off but my points are still all valid which is lazy on my part I know but I wasn't really going for specifics (it was like 4:30 in the morning I needed to get to bed) just trying to make broad points about US power I believe it's safe to say the US could hold it's own in a nuke war to the point of making the concept of MAD apply in the fictional scenario of the US vs the world war.
Anyway this all detracts from the only real point I was trying to make in response to EagleEyes comments. I don't think Iran and Syria are in a postion to push the US out of anywhere. Would you at least concede my accuracy is dead on with that statement UvwpvW?
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Not smart enough to figure it out? No surprise.
off topic - you knwo i have never been good at telling people by "personality" on a BBS... but i think i just figuered out who you are by looking closely at you name.
Madman?
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
off topic - you knwo i have never been good at telling people by "personality" on a BBS... but i think i just figuered out who you are by looking closely at you name.
Madman?
That's what I was thinking.
-
Now you guys made me go out onto the dis-information super highway and get something to prove my points. I know someone will go and find some leftwing article stating that this one is all wrong and in reality America is feeble and weak but here it is.
War games: American power moves beyond the mere super
May 3 2003
Stealth drones, GPS-guided smart munitions that hit precisely where aimed; anti-tank bombs that guide themselves; space-relayed data links that allow individual squad leaders to know exactly where American and opposition forces are during battle - the US military rolled out all this advanced technology, and more, in its conquest of Iraq.
The American military is the strongest the world has known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power.
For years to come, no other nation is likely to rival American might. Which means the global arms race is over, with the US the undisputed heavyweight champion.
Paradoxically, the runaway American victory in the conventional arms race might inspire a new round of proliferation of atomic weapons, because now only a nuclear state - such as, perhaps, North Korea - has any military leverage against the winner.
If it becomes generally believed that possession of even a few nuclear munitions is enough to render North Korea immune from American military force, other nations - Iran is an obvious next candidate - may place renewed emphasis on building them.
The extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The US sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A 10th Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines.
Russia has one modern aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, but it has about half the tonnage of an American supercarrier. The former Soviet navy did preliminary work on a supercarrier, but abandoned the project in 1992. Britain and France have a few small aircraft carriers. China decided against building one last year.
Any attempt to build a fleet that threatens the Pentagon's would be pointless, after all, because if another nation fielded a threatening vessel, American attack submarines would simply sink it in the first five minutes of any conflict. (The new Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine is essentially the futuristic supersub of The Hunt for Red October made real.) Knowing this, all other nations have conceded the seas to the US.
US air power is undisputed as well, with more advanced fighters and bombers than those of all other nations combined. The US possesses three stealth aircraft (the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-117 fighter), with two more (the F-22 and F-35 ) developed and awaiting production funds. No other nation even has a stealth aircraft on the drawing board.
American aerial might is so great that adversaries do not even try to fly. Serbia kept its planes on the ground during the Kosovo conflict of 1999; in recent fighting in Iraq, not one Iraqi fighter rose to oppose US aircraft.
The American lead in ground forces is not uncontested - China has a large standing army - but is large enough that the ground arms race might end, too. The US now possesses about 9000 M1 Abrams tanks, by far the world's strongest armoured force. The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat, gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank.
The American lead in electronics is also huge. Much of the "designating" of targets in the recent Iraq assault was done by advanced electronics on drones such as the Global Hawk, which flies at 60,000 feet, far beyond the range of anti-aircraft weapons. So sophisticated are the sensors and data links that make Global Hawk work that it might take a decade for another nation to field a similar drone and, by then, the US is likely to have leapfrogged ahead to something better.
The US is also working on unmanned, remote-piloted drone fighter planes that will be both relatively low-cost and extremely hard to shoot down, and small drone attack helicopters that will lead troops into
battle.
Further, the US holds an overwhelming lead in military use of space. Not only does the Pentagon command more and better reconnaissance satellites than the rest of the world combined, American forces have begun using space-relayed data in a significant way. Space "assets" will eventually be understood to have been critical to the lightning conquest of Iraq, and the American lead in this will only grow, since the Air Force now has the second-largest space budget in the world, after NASA's.
This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year, American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Centre for Defence Information, a non-partisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the US, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.
The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a perverse positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $US1.3 trillion ($A2 trillion), and has been declining since, to $US840 billion in 2002. That is a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over.
The US military reinforces its pre-eminence by going into combat. Rightly or wrongly, the US fights often; each fight becomes a learning opportunity for troops and a test of technology. No other military currently has the real-world experience of the US.
There is also the high quality in education and motivation of its personnel. This lead has grown as the US has integrated women into most combat roles, doubling the talent base on which recruiters can draw.
The American edge does not render its forces invincible: the expensive Apache attack helicopter, for example, fared poorly against routine small-arms fire in Iraq. More important, overwhelming power hardly ensures that the US will get its way in world affairs. Force is just one aspect of international relations, while experience has shown that military power can solve only military problems, not political ones.
North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the US, owing to nuclear deterrence.
As the global arms race ends with the US so far ahead, no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it.
Oh and I will concede Uvwpvw that this article validates your point that nuclear deterrence cannot be overlooked. But also it confirms that the US is the most powerful country the world has ever known.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The war in the mid east is about to start... [/B]
Did you just step off of a space ship from Alpha Centauri? The war in the middle east has been going on for nearly 2000 years.
And it will go for 2000 more.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Aren’t there ANY people here that can follow a discussion? Please read the whole thread.
i read the whole thread, you said that china could destroy USA with nukes, i said why, it makes no sense for them the destroy the USA.
you sound like a 3rd grade kid on the playground , " my daddy can beat up your daddy".
what you don't get is , why would your daddy want to beat up my daddy.
and yes, uvmpvW turned upside down is "Madman" also known as a "agent provocateur" or "troll"
-
Originally posted by john9001
i read the whole thread, you said that china could destroy USA with nukes, i said why, it makes no sense for them the destroy the USA.
you sound like a 3rd grade kid on the playground , " my daddy can beat up your daddy".
what you don't get is , why would your daddy want to beat up my daddy.
and yes, uvmpvW turned upside down is "Madman" also known as a "agent provocateur" or "troll"
Which is what I've been asking Madman but he is back pedaling.
-
Gunston, I would be surprised if anyone were to argue that the US isn't the predominant military power. But what happens if you train up the best football team in the world and the competition turns out to be a chess match.
When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
-
Gunston, that article you posted is full of factual errors and national ego-stroking, but it was a fun read nonetheless. Thanks for posting it.
“The American military is the strongest the world has known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power.”
This is the author’s argument. In the rest of his article he tries to support that statement. However as I will show you it is not only false, but the author himself actually proves it false.
“The extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The US sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A 10th Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines.”
This is his only correct assertion on US military superiority. At sea the USN is unchallenged in its might.
“Any attempt to build a fleet that threatens the Pentagon's would be pointless, after all, because if another nation fielded a threatening vessel, American attack submarines would simply sink it in the first five minutes of any conflict. (The new Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine is essentially the futuristic supersub of The Hunt for Red October made real.) Knowing this, all other nations have conceded the seas to the US.”
Here he starts his national ego-stroking in earnest. Clearly it would be pointless to build a fleet that rivals the USN. What would be the point? Invade the US mainland? No. The fact remains that America needs its huge navy because it is always an ocean away from where the action is. While the US needs several carrier battle groups to effect military power in for example the Middle-East, Europe, Russia and China can simply march their armies there if they so wished.
The USN is so huge because America finds herself at a geographical disadvantage in any form of military posturing. Having to cross an ocean is a great disadvantage if you want to conduct offensive military action. The US is getting exceedingly proficient at it though.
”US air power is undisputed as well, with more advanced fighters and bombers than those of all other nations combined. The US possesses three stealth aircraft (the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-117 fighter), with two more (the F-22 and F-35 ) developed and awaiting production funds. No other nation even has a stealth aircraft on the drawing board.
Here he continues stroking. While no one would question the might of the USAF it is by no means as dominant as the USN. Both the EU and Russia have comparable fighter forces both in numbers and quality. The Europeans already field front aspect stealth fighters (Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale) having rejected the need for full aspect stealth in their interceptors. Whether that was a wise decision remains to be seen. Both Russia and China have full aspect stealth fighters on the drawing board and perhaps in prototype stages of development.
The only true advantage the USAF has over its European and Russian counterparts is in air-mobility, which in my opinion is far more important than mere fighter strength in today’s geopolitical situation. Ironically the author fails to mention this advantage.
“The US now possesses about 9000 M1 Abrams tanks, by far the world's strongest armoured force. The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat, gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank.”
Here the author gets his facts wrong. Russia still has the world’s number one land force. As of 2005 the Russian Army fielded 21,820 tanks, 25,975 armored vehicles 17,376 artillery units (more than half of which are self-propelled), ~12,000 anti-aircraft guns and 2,670 SAM systems. No other nation can match Russia’s offensive ground capabilities on the Eurasian landmass.
“Further, the US holds an overwhelming lead in military use of space. Not only does the Pentagon command more and better reconnaissance satellites than the rest of the world combined, American forces have begun using space-relayed data in a significant way. Space "assets" will eventually be understood to have been critical to the lightning conquest of Iraq, and the American lead in this will only grow, since the Air Force now has the second-largest space budget in the world, after NASA's.”
This is an exaggeration. Historically it was the Soviets that had the undisputed lead in orbital photography spy satellites, while the US held the advantage in electronic eavesdropping. Today I would think the US has the advantage in both, but it is by no means overwhelming. In addition to the US the following countries have spy satellites in orbit: Europe (Germany, France, and Britain to be specific), Russia, China, India, Israel … and perhaps most surprisingly, Iran (launched two satellites in 2005).
”This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year, American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Centre for Defence Information, a non-partisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the US, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.”
While this assertion is basically sound his conclusion is not. The EU in particular could easily afford to match US defense spending. However they don’t need to, so they don’t. As I explained earlier America’s geographical disadvantage requires the US to deploy a huge navy. The USN is by far the biggest spender of the three main branches of the US Armed Forces. Additionally the US likes to buy expensively; paying much more for a slight advantage does save lives, but the overall increase in capabilities is not so great. What the US can offer in $$$, other nations (China and Russia in particular) can match in blood.
”The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a perverse positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $US1.3 trillion ($A2 trillion), and has been declining since, to $US840 billion in 2002. That is a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over.”
The arms race ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Other nations were quick to reorganize their militaries and reduce annual spending. Perhaps it is time America accepts that the arms race is over? Surely the American people have more pressing needs for the money.
”The US military reinforces its pre-eminence by going into combat. Rightly or wrongly, the US fights often; each fight becomes a learning opportunity for troops and a test of technology. No other military currently has the real-world experience of the US.”
Another overstatement. While the US certainly has the most experience in destroying 3rd world armies from the air, the US sorely lacks the training and experience in low-intensity conflicts; a deficiency that has become embarrassingly apparent in the last three years. Several nations have more experience in the fighting terrorism and insurgency. France and Russia have to be mentioned, but if one nation stands out from the rest it have to be Israel.
”There is also the high quality in education and motivation of its personnel. This lead has grown as the US has integrated women into most combat roles, doubling the talent base on which recruiters can draw.”
About time the US joined the rest of the world in allowing women to serve. In Russia women have served since before WWII, and in the western world women have served for decades. The USN submarine service still is a men-only club. Hardly the hallmarks of an enlightened society.
And here, as I said, the author finally proves himself wrong:
”North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the US, owing to nuclear deterrence.
As the global arms race ends with the US so far ahead, no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it.”
Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. When a starving 3rd world country like North-Korea can be practically immune to US invasion, and can even force concessions from the US at the negotiating table, how can anyone say the US has the same world power that the Roman Empire once had? No nation or groups of nations could hope to stand against the might of Rome’s legions. Now every two-bit dictator with a 60 year-old technology fission-bomb is untouchable, and four nations possess the power to outright destroy America if they were so insanely inclined. No, America does not match up to Rome’s world power … and I believe no nation ever will.
America’s Armed Forces are indeed the most powerful this world has ever seen. However in the face of nuclear deterrent they are rendered impotent, just like their main adversary during the Cold War.
-
"Here he continues stroking. While no one would question the might of the USAF it is by no means as dominant as the USN. Both the EU and Russia have comparable fighter forces both in numbers and quality. The Europeans already field front aspect stealth fighters (Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale) having rejected the need for full aspect stealth in their interceptors. Whether that was a wise decision remains to be seen. Both Russia and China have full aspect stealth fighters on the drawing board and perhaps in prototype stages of development."
I disagree with you on numbers of aircraft.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_aircraft.asp
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Nations that currently can destroy America in a matter of minutes: Russia, China, France and The United Kingdom.
Does France possess intercontinental missile technology sufficient to do the job? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious.
Confrontationally, however, I would like to say that none of the aforementioned have the ability to strike without themselves being 'wiped out in minutes'--therefore the list is pretty much useless. Whether they have the will to commit suicide in that fashion is another matter.
Any wars involving these or other technologically and socially modern nations are most likely to stay conventional, at least for the forseable future. I believe it is in the matter of conventional war, not nuclear, that the guy who started this exchange was trying to make a point.
-
uvwpvW
As I stated I concede the nuclear deterrent component, not because it is a direct threat to the US necessarily but because obviously the US needs to tread lightly so as not to provoke a rouge state like N. Korea or Iran to do something erratic like launch against a neighboring country that is allied with the US (Israel, Japan etc).
While I don’t want to attack your statements as being false (like I said I consider it the disinformation super highway) would you please clarify if your statements are opinion and/or conjecture or do they represent verifiable facts, and if so please provide sources.
Again not attacking you or your statements but the article seems to support my beliefs and understanding on the subject. To counter all I have is your statement that it is full of factual errors.
Also while numerical strength (such as Russia’s number of tanks is important) I think it was shown in the Gulf War that smaller number of superior weapons (US vs. Soviet era T-72 or T-80 tanks for example) can overcome that superiority of numbers.
-
Those numbers include transport and utility aircraft and helicopters. I specifically isolated fighter aircraft. I also noted the USAF’s dominance in air-mobility (transport planes and helicopters in Simpletonese).
-
See Rule #5
-
The USN is by far the biggest spender of the three main branches of the US Armed Forces.
I guess opinion is the answer unless you consider the following to be "by far"
US Navy budget 07-127.3 B
US Army budget 07-111.8 B
USAF budget 07- 105B
-
Originally posted by Gunston
EagleEyes
First off I don�t believe the scenario you describe would happen. Israel is by far the pre-eminent military power in the Middle East and could defeat the combined forces of Syria and Iran.
Second push us out of Iraq and Afghanistan do you know who we are and what we are capable of. We are not only the most powerful nation on Earth at this moment we are the most powerful nation in the history of the world when compared to the rest of the world.
Before 9-11 the US spent in the neighborhood of 326 Billion every year on defense, the rest of the world combined Russia, China, England and every other nation big and small spent a combined total of around 100 Billion. (I had looked up the figures sometime around 2000 but these are from memory so when someone does a search and says I was off 10 Billion or so ok you got me) anyway.
Contrary to all the negative hype about the war, and the fact that the loss of even one solider is indeed tragic, we have lost 2500 + soldiers in a war that in November of this year will have been as long as US involvement in WWII. We had battles in that war that started at 6:00am and by 10:00 am that morning we had lost more men than that.
The US against any or all the Middle East countries would be like one of those Sci-Fi movies where the aliens with their advanced tech come to earth and the poor earthlings are powerless against them. (We saw a preview it was called the Gulf war, it was against the most powerful Arab country at that time remember)
Third a draft why? Our soldiers are brave well trained performing unbelievable well and committed to their mission. In the field re-enlistment is at an all time high. The left in this country may want to cut and run but the majority of our men in Iraq and Afghanistan don�t.
Oh and when someone claims that the re-enlistment rate I state is false just did a search here is a New York Post article on it.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/52321.htm
Though i mostly agree with what you are saying...... If this war did bring the US into it, there would be a draft. Our military is so stretched that if we ended up in another big war at the moment, we simply would not have enough troops. Between 60-70% of the US forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Let us not forget that if war did come between the US and Syria/Iran, many people from other countries would entire the fight like they are in Iraq at this very moment. So, i dont believe we have the man power to stop them right away, but after time we would. Early in the war, we would have to use air power to its maximum.
I do agree that we would severly cripple both Syria and Iran, it would take time. Syrai is est to have about 80 Mig-23s, 30 Mig-25s and perhaps as many as 42 Mig-29s, 60 Mig-23BN fighter bombers, 50 Su-22s and 20 Su-24MKs. They also have around 40 reconnaissance-configured Mig-21s and about 8 Mig-25RBs. And they have around 35 armed Gazelles, 36 MI-24 Hinds and about 100 Mi-8/17 attack helicopters. Thier Air Force is about the same size as Iraq's was before the first Gulf war, but a little bigger. Irans Air Force consists of 30 Chengdu F-7Ms and 24 Shenyang F-s. Iran also has converted a Boeing 707 tanker into an RC-135 type Elint platform. As well as 25 F-14 Tomcats and 50 F-4E Phantoms. They also have a large number of Iraqi aircraft that flew to Iran during the first day of the Gulf war, which include 4-21 Mig 29s, 7 Su-25s, 44 Su-20/22s, 24 Mirage F1s and 24 Su-24s. As the article that was writen where i got this information, Iran was continueing to buy arms from Russia and elsewhere. They could very well have as many as 80 Mig-29s by this time. They had ordered Mig-27s and Tu-22M "Backfires" from Russia, but again, as the time this article was writen, Iran had yet to recieve them.
Hope this proves to certain people, that im very immature in my ways, both mind and body! :aok *sarcasticly of course*
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
Wow, i must say, you know me VERY well. Didnt know a 20 year old was a child. But i guess i was wrong. I learned something today, some people are so ignorent, they think they know YOU better then YOU KNOW YOURSELF!!
:aok Congrats sir! :aok
Physical maturity does not gaurantee mental maturity, nor is it a prerequisite for mental maturity. I've met 40 year olds who belong in cribs, as well as teenagers with more wisdom and perspective than their parents.
Anyone who directly equates years lived with wisdom accumulated usually belongs to the first group... As do most people who feel strongly about reinstating the draft.
Congrats, sir.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Those numbers include transport and utility aircraft and helicopters. I specifically isolated fighter aircraft. I also noted the USAF’s dominance in air-mobility (transport planes and helicopters in Simpletonese).
Fair enough, what're your numbers on "fighters" then?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Physical maturity does not gaurantee mental maturity, nor is it a prerequisite for mental maturity. I've met 40 year olds who belong in cribs, as well as teenagers with more wisdom and perspective than their parents.
Anyone who directly equates years lived with wisdom accumulated usually belongs to the first group... As do most people who feel strongly about reinstating the draft.
Congrats, sir.
I was simply saying i was 20 years old, he said i was a child in the head and body. Just simply said i was not a child by body. Those who know me on a personal level know my maturity mentally. I dont feel strongly about reinstating the draft, i simply commented that if we went to war with Syria and Iran, the draft was a realisitic possiblity. Which, it is!
And a big Congrats to you sir!
-
The fact you quote the NY Times as a valid news source had me laughing. This went from a semi-good deabte about what's going into pure comedy.
Just what my Monday needed. Thank You!
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The fact you quote the NY Times as a valid news source had me laughing. This went from a semi-good deabte about what's going into pure comedy.
Just what my Monday needed. Thank You!
Who quoted the NY times??
-
By my count the USAF has 1893 F-15s and F-16s. I haven't counted any of the Navy's thousands of fighters nor did I include any of the many hundreds of air to ground or training aircraft which might be converted if needed.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Did you just step off of a space ship from Alpha Centauri? The war in the middle east has been going on for nearly 2000 years.
And it will go for 2000 more.
No it won't eventually they'll all band togeather and try to kill us instead.
-
Two things I think the pee pee measurers have forgotten. The first is
how do the relative training and force levels of the opposing forces
measure up?
The second is operational readiness..it's all well and good to have nine
billion gazillion uber duber fighters, but can you man them, fuel them, arm
them..or even get them to where the action is? One area I think the US
absolutely excels in is floating checks ;)
-
EagleEyes
Not sure but maybe you haven’t been reading the exchanges between Uvwpvw and myself, and while we’re not in agreement on every issue we have been debating, I think between the two of us we have quoted enough verifiable information sources to conclude that a war that involved the US against both Syria and Iran would be both short lived and have quite a bad outcome for those countries.
Contrary to the left controlled main stream anti-Bush media’s portrayal of the situation we are not “spread thin” because of Iraq. (See this site for troop strength and deployment numbers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Personnel_deployed
I also had a link in one of the above post concerning the record number of “in the field re-enlistments higher than even during WWII.
As to some of your other points the combined Air Force’s of Iran and Syria would not last past the morning of the first day against the USAF unless like Saddam they wisely found a neutral country to hide them in so they might still have one after the conflict ended (of course he never got his back… sucker)
With regards to Iran’s Air force we sold them F-14’s and Phantoms under the Shah but aircraft are very maintenance and part demanding to keep in the air. There would be only one source for those parts and that store has been closed since 1978.
Also although those pesky insurgents and their IED’s and sneaky mortar attacks do tragically cost American and Iraqi, lives as far as the requirement on US military strength it’s really more like policing than fighting a war against a nation’s military power. In fact I would argue that our force in Iraq makes the whole scenario less likely to occur and the prospects of a quick victory if it did happen more certain simply because it would not require us to deploy forces to the region as we had to prior to both the wars in Iraq.
And as far as a draft I have no real opposition to the concept either now or in a time of peace, but the pentagon thinks differently than I do, they don’t want a military of conscripts. The current all volunteer system of people who chose to join because they want to defend the country has proven to be a far better system creating a vastly superior and motivated fighting force.
Again I invite you to review the post above for information and statistics provided by me, Uvwpvw and some others.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The fact you quote the NY Times as a valid news source had me laughing. This went from a semi-good deabte about what's going into pure comedy.
Just what my Monday needed. Thank You!
I think you might be mistakenly referring to my earlier link to the New York Post. I my self am not terribly familiar with the New York Post but found the article by doing a quick search of the web.
However in terms of your post I agree quoting anything from the New York Times as a valid news source, that would go beyond funny that would border on the absurd
-
Originally posted by Gunston
EagleEyes
Not sure but maybe you haven�t been reading the exchanges between Uvwpvw and myself, and while we�re not in agreement on every issue we have been debating, I think between the two of us we have quoted enough verifiable information sources to conclude that a war that involved the US against both Syria and Iran would be both short lived and have quite a bad outcome for those countries.
Contrary to the left controlled main stream anti-Bush media�s portrayal of the situation we are not �spread thin� because of Iraq. (See this site for troop strength and deployment numbers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Personnel_deployed
I also had a link in one of the above post concerning the record number of �in the field re-enlistments higher than even during WWII.
As to some of your other points the combined Air Force�s of Iran and Syria would not last past the morning of the first day against the USAF unless like Saddam they wisely found a neutral country to hide them in so they might still have one after the conflict ended (of course he never got his back� sucker)
With regards to Iran�s Air force we sold them F-14�s and Phantoms under the Shah but aircraft are very maintenance and part demanding to keep in the air. There would be only one source for those parts and that store has been closed since 1978.
Also although those pesky insurgents and their IED�s and sneaky mortar attacks do tragically cost American and Iraqi, lives as far as the requirement on US military strength it�s really more like policing than fighting a war against a nation�s military power. In fact I would argue that our force in Iraq makes the whole scenario less likely to occur and the prospects of a quick victory if it did happen more certain simply because it would not require us to deploy forces to the region as we had to prior to both the wars in Iraq.
And as far as a draft I have no real opposition to the concept either now or in a time of peace, but the pentagon thinks differently than I do, they don�t want a military of conscripts. The current all volunteer system of people who chose to join because they want to defend the country has proven to be a far better system creating a vastly superior and motivated fighting force.
Again I invite you to review the post above for information and statistics provided by me, Uvwpvw and some others.
I understand what you guys are saying, but i was just putting my 2 cents in. I agree that the US would eventually knock the crap outta both Syria and Iran. I just disagree on how long it would take. I believe it would take a little longer then the war did in Iraq. Please do not get me wrong, i support President Bush and the War in Iraq 100%. I have many friends and family in Iraq and Afganistan. I just believe it will be much more difficult then Operation Iraqi Freedom was. We took on Iraq which is a "small" country. Iran is twice if not three times the size, and Syria is just as big as Iraq. With the amount of troops we currently have, we would be unable to fight a war without a draft! Just my 2 cents, im really not trying to argue with you guys. I respect both of your opinions very much!!
<>
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
I understand what you guys are saying, but i was just putting my 2 cents in. I agree that the US would eventually knock the crap outta both Syria and Iran. I just disagree on how long it would take. I believe it would take a little longer then the war did in Iraq. Please do not get me wrong, i support President Bush and the War in Iraq 100%. I have many friends and family in Iraq and Afganistan. I just believe it will be much more difficult then Operation Iraqi Freedom was. We took on Iraq which is a "small" country. Iran is twice if not three times the size, and Syria is just as big as Iraq. With the amount of troops we currently have, we would be unable to fight a war without a draft! Just my 2 cents, im really not trying to argue with you guys. I respect both of your opinions very much!!
<>
EagleEyes and Everyone else
I have only been posting on this board a few days (off work with an IV in my arm due to a bone infection, kind of tied to the chair with time on my hands) and may not be quite up on the proper etiquette of this type of communication. My first posting of anything on any forum was here the other day. So if I step on anybody’s toes or screw up on technical aspects such as providing links etc. let me apologize now. I don’t mean to offend anyone I have been playing the game since 02 or 03 and realize I have or will see most or all of you in the arena, not looking to make enemies.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Gunston, that article you posted is full of factual errors and national ego-stroking, but it was a fun read nonetheless. Thanks for posting it.
This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year, American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Centre for Defence Information, a non-partisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the US, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.
While this assertion is basically sound his conclusion is not. The EU in particular could easily afford to match US defense spending. However they don’t need to, so they don’t
The arms race ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Other nations were quick to reorganize their militaries and reduce annual spending. Perhaps it is time America accepts that the arms race is over? Surely the American people have more pressing needs for the money.
New study compares GDP and growth:
EU versus USA
If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.
Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU.
EU versus USA is written by Dr Fredrik Bergström, President of the Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr Robert Gidehag, until recently Chief Economist of the same institute and now President of the Swedish Taxpayer's Association.
I don't know about that "easily" part, maybe the needs of the America people (who enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, heck we keep hearing about the obesity epidemic and how it disproportionately affects the poor) can wait and we could use the money instead to help the EU
:cry :cry :cry
-
Originally posted by Gunston
...a war that involved the US against both Syria and Iran would be both short lived and have quite a bad outcome for those countries.
In the case of their aircraft...1-2 days. In the case of their air defenses, 2-3 days. In the case of eliminating the entire army from the field...Iran is mostly some nasty terrain and quite large. The outcome is forgone but I don;t know how fast a ground war in Iranian soil would take.
-
Bush lunch chat is caught on tape (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5187276.stm)
tell it like it is George.....
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Gunston
This is another area where all other nations must concede to the US, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.
Heck even the US can't afford the military it has, nor it's invasions and occupations.
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Heck even the US can't afford the military it has, nor it's invasions and occupations.
As of July 11, 2006 the US spent 4.06% of GDP on defense spending ranking it at #26 in the world as a % of GDP.
Less than
#9 Madagascar at 7.2%
#12 Macedonia at 6.0%
Just higher than
# 27 Zimbabwe at 4.0%.
I think we can afford it.
See table at
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
Do you guys in the rest of the world even know just how rich we are? or for that matter do you guys in the States
I’ll give you a hint
Based on GDP
The US with a little more than 298 million people is #1
The EU made up of 25 countries and a population of almost 457 million people is # 2
( I still can’t get used to this EU thing, are people from Britain, France, Germany etc. now to be called EUians or what do they want to be called)
Chart
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
-
Originally posted by Gunston
The USN is by far the biggest spender of the three main branches of the US Armed Forces.
I guess opinion is the answer unless you consider the following to be "by far"
US Navy budget 07-127.3 B
US Army budget 07-111.8 B
USAF budget 07- 105B
Keep in mind, the USMC budget comes from the Navy. IIRC, it's approximately $15 Billion per year.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Did that make sense in spanish or something? Because in English it didn't.
:huh
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Heck even the US can't afford the military it has, nor it's invasions and occupations.
You just keep right on believing that.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
( I still can’t get used to this EU thing, are people from Britain, France, Germany etc. now to be called EUians or what do they want to be called)
I think its Ewes :)
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
They have 18 DF5s capable of reaching anywhere in the US, and 12 DF4s that can reach the west coast. Each carrying a 3-5 megaton warhead. So what I mean by “destroy America” is the vaporization of 18 east coast and central/south population centers and 12 west coast population centers. The rest of the country would be radiated – the severity depending on weather conditions. For all intents and purposes America would be destroyed.
Granted, the destruction would not be as complete as if Russia, France or Britain attacked.
I was just re-reading some of the post this morning and thought I should remind those who know and inform those who don't that China would have no missiles that could target the US if Clinton hadn't sold them the technology for campaign contributions.
Some sites (some of these also deal with other tech transfers)
http://www.americasfuture.net/1998/july98/98-0727a.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/22/213115.shtml
http://www.softwar.net/arrow.html
http://home.comcast.net/~commonsensenow/abm1.html
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/zehr.html
This one also points out how the Gorelick memo (the one from the 9-11 hearings) was made to protect Clinton from this scandal and contributed to the failure to prevent 9-11
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200404/SPE20040426a.html
Anyway anyone interested can Google it lots of info out there on it.
And oh yea I’ll save you lefties the trouble how’s this:
All lie’s it was a vast right wing conspiracy
Or
Janet Reno did a through investigation and found no wrong doing (other than those few Chinese guy’s that went to jail)
Or
…well you guys go ahead I’m running out of ideas of what you guys would say to defend it.
-
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
-
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
-
Thank you for your thoughts and insights gentlemen, I will miss them.
Goodbye.
-
Gunston, the budget for defence in the US for 2005 was $401.7 billion. The US federal government debt in 2005 was $331 billion. If you don't have the money for something, you can't afford it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gunston, the budget for defence in the US for 2005 was $401.7 billion. The US federal government debt in 2005 was $331 billion. If you don't have the money for something, you can't afford it.
Is your house paid off? Your car(s) too?
The entire defense spending is small compared to the various redistribution-of-wealth plans/programs. So you are saying we cannot afford AFDC/WIC/Medicare/Medicaid/SSI/Welfare/food-stamps/etc. either?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gunston, the budget for defence in the US for 2005 was $401.7 billion. The US federal government debt in 2005 was $331 billion. If you don't have the money for something, you can't afford it.
thrawn is right , we should reduce our military spending, bring our troops home and let canada take over as "defender of the free world"
good idea, eh?
-
Originally posted by john9001
thrawn is right , we should reduce our military spending, bring our troops home and let canada take over as "defender of the free world"
good idea, eh?
of course not, once we withdraw, let the Israelis get pushed into the sea & have a dumbacrat POTUS, the rest of the world (including the muslim cheekboness) will luv us
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Is your house paid off? Your car(s) too?
mine are...
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Is your house paid off? Your car(s) too?
I don't have a car, I don't need one. Don't have a house, can't afford one. It's called living within your budget. ;)
The entire defense spending is small compared to the various redistribution-of-wealth plans/programs. So you are saying we cannot afford AFDC/WIC/Medicare/Medicaid/SSI/Welfare/food-stamps/etc. either?
Yep. If you don't have the money to pay for something, you can't afford it.
-
Been making my mortgage payments on time for the last 19 years, car payments too. I even send the lender some extra money a few times a year to apply to principle. All this time I thought I could afford to live there, guess I'd better move out then :p
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
Hmmm, what did i say here? What has hezbollah to gain by stirring up, ohhh, i must have used a misspelled version of the profane word ****.
-
Originally posted by john9001
thrawn is right , we should reduce our military spending, bring our troops home and let canada take over as "defender of the free world"
good idea, eh?
the goal of the life is evolution as a human and as a society.
The canadian pacifist policy in defense spending is few steps ahead , i hope are going to export this ideology to the rest of the world,
What for a "police superpower" close to bankrupcy as a nation, with military spending more than the reset of the world combined !?
Is that smart management?
how long can US aford to enforce the "flow" of the history!?
Empires rise and fall, the political map of the world has changed and it will change, in the future
-
^^^
LOL LOL LOL
be thankful that the US does carry that burden
-
Originally posted by Gunston
As of July 11, 2006 the US spent 4.06% of GDP on defense spending ranking it at #26 in the world as a % of GDP.
Less than
#9 Madagascar at 7.2%
#12 Macedonia at 6.0%
Just higher than
# 27 Zimbabwe at 4.0%.
I think we can afford it.
See table at
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
Do you guys in the rest of the world even know just how rich we are? or for that matter do you guys in the States
I’ll give you a hint
Based on GDP
The US with a little more than 298 million people is #1
The EU made up of 25 countries and a population of almost 457 million people is # 2
( I still can’t get used to this EU thing, are people from Britain, France, Germany etc. now to be called EUians or what do they want to be called)
Chart
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
The french like to be called french, the brits likes to be called that and so on. The EU in not a country nor is europe a country.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
Originally posted by uvwpvW
New study compares GDP and growth:
EU versus USA
If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.
Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU.
EU versus USA is written by Dr Fredrik Bergström, President of the Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr Robert Gidehag, until recently Chief Economist of the same institute and now President of the Swedish Taxpayer's Association.
I don't know about that "easily" part, maybe the needs of the America people (who enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, heck we keep hearing about the obesity epidemic and how it disproportionately affects the poor) can wait and we could use the money instead to help the EU
Also you should compare how many hours of work EU citisens do compared to US citisen... We don´t have so huge gap between poor and rich people, caused by socialism around here, but also health care is provided for free for everyone.
So in overall the weak people have things better here, no 3 need to do 3 jobs at the same time to just survive. On the other hand people who earn more are pretty pissed that they are so overly taxed. I pay near 40% of my income as taxes and I am pretty pissed about it...
European GDP would surely rise if people would not have health care, pensions and stuff -->you would have to work your prettythang off to save something for a rainy day.... but would this place be better to live around?
-
The "weak" people have it better? And how do they do that? force the achievers to pay for it? In my opinion socialism is the reason you are behind.
And...It is quality of life. I do not want to live under socialism. I would rather be an individualist. I don't need your free health care and anyone here who needs medical attention will get it. But.... if they can't (won't) afford it then they damn well know that they are a charity case.
Socialism trys to make people feel ok about not taking care of themselves.... no thanks. Not at the expense of them telling me what is good for me.
Your society would collapse if you had the same border with say mexico as we have. With your brand of "diversity" we would be in even better shape.
If our country falls it will be because we are going more towards socialism not because we don't have enough of it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by ghi
the goal of the life is evolution as a human and as a society.
The canadian pacifist policy in defense spending is few steps ahead , i hope are going to export this ideology to the rest of the world,
What for a "police superpower" close to bankrupcy as a nation, with military spending more than the reset of the world combined !?
Is that smart management?
how long can US aford to enforce the "flow" of the history!?
Empires rise and fall, the political map of the world has changed and it will change, in the future
An excellent point. We cannot hope to sustain this spending level.
-
Originally posted by ghi
the goal of the life is evolution as a human and as a society.
The canadian pacifist policy in defense spending is few steps ahead ,
No it's not. In the past we have failed in our obligations to our allies. Canadian typically like to point out how wonderful we are because of all the peacekeeping operations we have participated in. What most Canadians don't realise that more often than not we have had to ask the Yanks to give a ride to them, and they have invariably been gracious enough to give us one.
Thankfully the government is addressing this with it's purchase of tactical and strategic transport aircraft and ships.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The "weak" people have it better? And how do they do that? force the achievers to pay for it? In my opinion socialism is the reason you are behind.
Behind? Last year the "capitalist" US maintained it's standard of living by having a trade deficit of over $750 Billion. Conversely the "socialist" EU maintained it's standard of living while giving $122 Billion of goods/services to the US.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
the war in the mid east is about to start... [/B]
The "ground war" just did:
Red Alert: The Battle Joined
The ground war has begun. Several Israeli brigades now appear to be operating between the Lebanese border and the Litani River. According to reports, Hezbollah forces are dispersed in multiple bunker complexes and are launching rockets from these and other locations.
Hezbollah's strategy appears to be threefold. First, force Israel into costly attacks against prepared fortifications. Second, draw Israeli troops as deeply into Lebanon as possible, forcing them to fight on extended supply lines. Third, move into an Iraqi-style insurgency from which Israel -- out of fear of a resumption of rocket attacks -- cannot withdraw, but which the Israelis also cannot endure because of extended long-term casualties. This appears to have been a carefully planned strategy, built around a threat to Israeli cities that Israel can't afford. The war has begun at Hezbollah's time and choosing.
Israel is caught between three strategic imperatives. First, it must end the threat to Israeli cities, which must involve the destruction of Hezbollah's launch capabilities south of the Litani River. Second, it must try to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, which means it must move into the Bekaa Valley and as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut. Third, it must do so in such a way that it is not dragged into a long-term, unsustainable occupation against a capable insurgency.
Hezbollah has implemented its strategy by turning southern Lebanon into a military stronghold, consisting of well-designed bunkers that serve both as fire bases and launch facilities for rockets. The militants appear to be armed with anti-tank weapons and probably anti-aircraft weapons, some of which appear to be of American origin, raising the question of how they were acquired. Hezbollah wants to draw Israel into protracted fighting in this area in order to inflict maximum casualties and to change the psychological equation for both military and political reasons.
Israelis historically do not like to fight positional warfare. Their tendency has been to bypass fortified areas, pushing the fight to the rear in order to disrupt logistics, isolate fortifications and wait for capitulation. This has worked in the past. It is not clear that it will work here. The great unknown is the resilience of Hezbollah's fighters. To this point, there is no reason to doubt it. Israel could be fighting the most resilient and well-motivated opposition force in its history. But the truth is that neither Israel nor Hezbollah really knows what performance will be like under pressure.
Simply occupying the border-Litani area will not achieve any of Israel's strategic goals. Hezbollah still would be able to use rockets against Israel. And even if, for Hezbollah, this area is lost, its capabilities in the Bekaa Valley and southern Beirut will remain intact. Therefore, a battle that focuses solely on the south is not an option for Israel, unless the Israelis feel a defeat here will sap Hezbollah's will to resist. We doubt this to be the case.
The key to the campaign is to understand that Hezbollah has made its strategic decisions. It will not be fighting a mobile war. Israel has lost the strategic initiative: It must fight when Hezbollah has chosen and deal with Hezbollah's challenge. However, given this, Israel does have an operational choice. It can move in a sequential fashion, dealing first with southern Lebanon and then with other issues. It can bypass southern Lebanon and move into the rear areas, returning to southern Lebanon when it is ready. It can attempt to deal with southern Lebanon in detail, while mounting mobile operations in the Bekaa Valley, in the coastal regions and toward south Beirut, or both at the same time.
There are resource and logistical issues involved. Moving simultaneously on all three fronts will put substantial strains on Israel's logistical capability. An encirclement westward on the north side of the Litani, followed by a move toward Beirut while the southern side of the Litani is not secured, poses a serious challenge in re-supply. Moving into the Bekaa means leaving a flank open to the Syrians. We doubt Syria will hit that flank, but then, we don't have to live with the consequences of an intelligence failure. Israel will be sending a lot of force on that line if it chooses that method. Again, since many roads in south Lebanon will not be secure, that limits logistics.
Israel is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Hezbollah has created a situation in which Israel must fight the kind of war it likes the least -- attritional, tactical operations against prepared forces -- or go to the war it prefers, mobile operations, with logistical constraints that make these operations more difficult and dangerous. Moreover, if it does this, it increases the time during which Israeli cities remain under threat. Given clear failures in appreciating Hezbollah's capabilities, Israel must take seriously the possibility that Hezbollah has longer-ranged, anti-personnel rockets that it will use while under attack.
Israel has been trying to break the back of Hezbollah resistance in the south through air attack, special operations and probing attacks. This clearly hasn't worked thus far. That does not mean it won't work, as Israel applies more force to the problem and starts to master the architecture of Hezbollah's tactical and operational structure; however, Israel can't count on a rapid resolution of that problem.
The Israelis have by now thought the problem through. They don't like operational compromises -- preferring highly focused solutions at the center of gravity of an enemy. Hezbollah has tried to deny Israel a center of gravity and may have succeeded, forcing Israel into a compromise position. Repeated assaults against prepared positions are simply not something the Israelis can do, because they cannot afford casualties. They always have preferred mobile encirclement or attacks at the center of gravity of a defensive position. But at this moment, viewed from the outside, this is not an option.
continued...
-
...continued.
An extended engagement in southern Lebanon is the least likely path, in our opinion. More likely -- and this is a guess -- is a five-part strategy:
1. Insert airmobile and airborne forces north of the Litani to seal the rear of Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. Apply air power and engineering forces to reduce the fortifications, and infantry to attack forces not in fortified positions. Bottle them up, and systematically reduce the force with limited exposure to the attackers.
2. Secure roads along the eastern flank for an armored thrust deep into the Bekaa Valley to engage the main Hezbollah force and infrastructure there. This would involve a move from Qiryat Shimona north into the Bekaa, bypassing the Litani to the west, and would probably require sending airmobile and special forces to secure the high ground. It also would leave the right flank exposed to Syria.
3. Use air power and special forces to undermine Hezbollah capabilities in the southern Beirut area. The Israelis would consider a move into this area after roads through southern Lebanon are cleared and Bekaa relatively secured, moving into the area, only if absolutely necessary, on two axes of attack.
4. Having defeated Hezbollah in detail, withdraw under a political settlement shifting defense responsibility to the Lebanese government.
5. Do all of this while the United States is still able to provide top cover against diplomatic initiatives that will create an increasingly difficult international environment.
There can be many variations on this theme, but these elements are inevitable:
1. Hezbollah cannot be defeated without entering the Bekaa Valley, at the very least.
2. At some point, resistance in southern Lebanon must be dealt with, regardless of the cost.
3. Rocket attacks against northern Israel and even Tel Aviv must be accepted while the campaign unfolds.
4. The real challenge will come when Israel tries to withdraw.
No. 4 is the real challenge. Destruction of Hezbollah's infrastructure does not mean annihilation of the force. If Israel withdraws, Hezbollah or a successor organization will regroup. If Israel remains, it can wind up in the position the United States is in Iraq. This is exactly what Hezbollah wants. So, Israel can buy time, or Israel can occupy and pay the cost. One or the other.
The other solution is to shift the occupational burden to another power that is motivated to prevent the re-emergence of an anti-Israeli military force -- as that is what Hezbollah has become. The Lebanese government is the only possible alternative, but not a particularly capable one, reflecting the deep rifts in Lebanon.
Israel has one other choice, which is to extend the campaign to defeat Syria as well. Israel can do this, but the successor regime to Syrian President Bashar al Assad likely would be much worse for Israel than al Assad has been. Israel can imagine occupying Syria; it can't do it. Syria is too big and the Arabs have learned from the Iraqis how to deal with an occupation. Israel cannot live with a successor to al Assad and it cannot take control of Syria. It will have to live with al Assad. And that means an occupation of Lebanon would always be hostage to Syrian support for insurgents.
Hezbollah has dealt Israel a difficult hand. It has thought through the battle problem as well as the political dimension carefully. Somewhere in this, there has been either an Israeli intelligence failure or a political failure to listen to intelligence. Hezbollah's capabilities have posed a problem for Israel that allowed Hezbollah to start a war at a time and in a way of its choosing. The inquest will come later in Israel. And Hezbollah will likely be shattered regardless of its planning. The correlation of forces does not favor it. But if it forces Israel not only to defeat its main force but also to occupy, Hezbollah will have achieved its goals.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
-
thrawn... the EU is giving me stuff? No wonder they have such a poor standard of living.... they should sell it to us instead. Aide to the U.S. well.....I suppose that it is about time..... overdue even.
Is there some location that I can go to in order to pick up my free stuff or will it come UPS?
lazs