US defence: Losing its edge in technology?

[Macaquerie]

I considered myself pretty star spangled, but there America's will is unproven or questionable (see: Vietnam). In WW2 the US would lose more soldiers taking a speck of dust in the pacific than we have lost since Vietnam. Also I'm pretty sure the soviet union had a few SINGLE battles in WW2 where they lost more soldiers than the US has lost since an American military even existed.

This obsession with casualty counts is something that has really crippled our military in the years since WWII. The reasoning is understandable - casualties are one way to put a solid number on how well a battle is going, and in general inflicting more casualties on the enemy than you take is a pretty good sign that things are going well. However, the military establishment seems to have it drilled in their heads that as long as more enemies die than friendlies, America is winning by definition, which is absolutely NOT the case.

[PACOX]

I agree with a lot of this post even if this person is probably the polar opposite to my ideology. The fact is the American military is sort of a Blitzkrieg force, if we went to war with somebody like China and we didn't obliterate them within a year, I agree with "America being in for a rude shock." That being said, I think the US has demonstrated that they can be a pretty damn effective blitzkrieg army. I also agree with some other assessments of current us military priorities. In WW2 our hardware was mediocre, besides a couple key pieces. If you really read into WW2 in depth the Japanese had the best equipment for most of the war, and the Soviets had the equipment near the end of the war. What made America scary is that even if our planes were 10% less effective compared to Zeroes, we could produce 3x as many (made up number), and they were maintained, and military units all had all of the assets that they needed (No euro-trash horse drawn armies). But overall I think America's greatest weakness is that her military hasn't really been man handled since the civil war (getting your ass handed to you can teach you a lot of lessons).

The US is exceptional as an attacking force (because of logistics and knowing nothing but projecting force because the mainland is both hard to reach and an too valuable of an asset to allow someone to freely invade it). If you're talking hardware, the US has been the techinal victor since WW2, but WW2 also showed us that having the best hardware doesn't mean everything if you can't utilize it (Russia has shit hardware, Germany and Japan had the best, who won?) To add to my (), Vietnam is seen as a thorn in the side of the US but no honest historian would bet against the US if the US went in unrestricted.

What put the US (and the Soviets) at the top was that both were/are good at war (modern day Russia doesn't rival the US like the Soviets but it would still wipe the floor in any local fight). The US doesn't need to have the best hardware (it does in the present tense though) because its been adapt at the logistics of war since its inception, it also sits on a very fertile piece of land that would allow it to prolong any war shot of a nuclear attack on its resources (making a war on the mainland not even worth it at that point).

You're right that the US military hasn't really been "tested" since its own civil war but thats because it hasn't had to push itself that far. WW1, the US played clean up. In WW2 the US played calvary. It won the Cold War and came out the technical and financial victor. The US has been in the ME for 30+ years but its also been pulling its punches because at the end of the day, the ME doesn't have a huge impact on the US (its allies but not the US).

It the world wants the US to cease to being the only superpower it merely needs to stop trying to catch up to the US.

[Cybran]

It the world wants the US to cease to being the only superpower it merely needs to stop trying to catch up to the US.

And what good has this militarization brought to you? Police officers who ride around in armored trucks and treating every shift as an Iraq tour? Gun-ho trigger happy rednecks decked out in military surplus equipment ready for civil war?

Inner cities with the homicide rate of Nigeria?


Do you think anyone in the world really aspires to become like you?

[Guy4123]

Where are people getting that Japan (especially Japan) and Germany had the best military hardware during WW2?

[Cybran]

Where are people getting that Japan (especially Japan) and Germany had the best military hardware during WW2?

Post war American revisionism. During the Red Scare the T-34 which was the best tank in the war and the Russian achievements were downplayed and replaced with images of dirty hordes of rapists who overwhelmed the proud German nation.

Meanwhile NAZIs were building American rockets.

[Macaquerie]

Where are people getting that Japan (especially Japan) and Germany had the best military hardware during WW2?

To people whose only knowledge of war comes from video games, Axis tech definitely seems like it would be superior, given that their vehicles tended to bigger, more complex, and more heavily armed than the Allied equivalents, nevermind that they didn't actually work most of the time. In fact, it seems like the US military has managed to copy this design philosophy in the years since, the fact that there is no country out there currently mass producing cheap yet effective and reliable hardware makes our stuff look better by comparison but doesn't make it function any better.

[Mihalik]

Post war American revisionism. During the Red Scare the T-34 which was the best tank in the war and the Russian achievements were downplayed and replaced with images of dirty hordes of rapists who overwhelmed the proud German nation.

Meanwhile NAZIs were building American rockets.

Okay... Now you went overboard.

The mass rapes and the quality of tanks have nothing to do with each other.

But...The Soviets WERE IN FACT A MASSIVE HORDE OF RAPISTS AND MURDERERS.

Whether they did this out of vengeance or what doesn't change the fact that the Russians raped and robed themselves across Eastern and Central Europe.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Deleted]

Or better yet, if we really wanted to get another edge pour some of those funds into making sure American males graduating high school are not too obese to go die in a foreign war. I read an article about how overweight we have become is now almost a national security issue, because we wont have in shape soldiers to draft.

Well this comes to mind

Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.
Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?
Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
An epidemic like it is polio. Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.
The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.
"How'd you get through it grandpa?"
"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."

Nobody knows why were getting fatter? Look at our lifestyle.
I'll sit at a drive thru.
I'll sit there behind fifteen other cars instead of getting up to make the eight foot walk to the totally empty counter.
Everything is mega meal, super sized. Want biggie fries, super sized, want to go large.
You want to have thirty burgers for a nickel you fat mother fucker. There's room in the back. Take it!
Want a 55 gallon drum of Coke with that? It's only three more cents.

[caervek]

Where are people getting that Japan (especially Japan) and Germany had the best military hardware during WW2?

It's called history, Germany had the best tanks, the best planes, best rockets, etc etc. The problem was they only had a handful of each, it doesn't matter if you have jet aircraft that can fly rings around the enemy or stealth fighter bombers that can evade allied radar or even super tanks, if the enemy can overwhelm you then your toast.

Of course once they were in full retreat and their research complexes were getting destroyed/captured the allies were able to catch up somewhat but for the majority of the war they had a distinct edge in technology.

[Guy4123]

It's called history, Germany had the best tanks, the best planes, best rockets, etc etc. The problem was they only had a handful of each, it doesn't matter if you have jet aircraft that can fly rings around the enemy or stealth fighter bombers that can evade allied radar or even super tanks, if the enemy can overwhelm you then your toast.

Of course once they were in full retreat and their research complexes were getting destroyed/captured the allies were able to catch up somewhat but for the majority of the war they had a distinct edge in technology.

You can't hold up the Tiger II and ME-262 has the best tank and plane while ignoring the glaring mechanical reliability issues and fundamental flaws in their designs that weren't capable of being rectified. That kinda makes them not the best.

[Ulmita]

Why American gear is so expensive:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...es-boeing.html

and earlier this year on gmd: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ic-report.html

The report notes that in "heavily scripted" flight tests that are "set up for success," GMD interceptors have often failed to hit mock enemy warheads. In the seven most recent tests, interceptors destroyed their targets just three times, the report says -- a finding consistent with conclusions of the Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office.

Also, Americans dont hold a "total" edge in technology military wise despite how hard they are trying to make us believe it. There are several categories where they trail second or even third place mainly in the missile technology.

Given same budget worldwide, i doubt America would make top 3 military. They are only the better army because of the ludicrous amount of money they pour in.

[Dundebuns]

Governments seem to think they can get the same bang for their buck from research institutes without supply the same or increasing amounts of funding, and instead cut money to these places. The wage for a research assistant is pitiful. In the UK, it's about £20K for pure research, if you find a position. Grants are incredibly hard to come by and have a lot of competition. It's the reason I jumped from science to the IT industry, because there are so few science jobs, and the ones there are just are not worth it. Researchers put in a lot of unsociable hours (the experiments I performed worked best at night when there was less traffic and people walking around, causing vibrations that interfered with my instruments) and while it's nice to get papers published in journals, that on its own does not put food on the table.

Basically, if you want to remain on the cutting edge of tech and science, then fund it well.

[jimboa24]

This is slightly disconcerting, even though it is essentially just one article's outlook on a situation. It's not just about dumping money into a war machine - a lot of bleeding edge civilian tech comes from things that were originally developed for the military or funded by the defense budget. Grants from Uncle Sam fund a lot of good things that benefit a lot of civilians. Look at all the things we got that were repurposed or made from tech that was originally designed to take us to the moon or that NASA had to play with.

[PACOX]

And what good has this militarization brought to you? Police officers who ride around in armored trucks and treating every shift as an Iraq tour? Gun-ho trigger happy rednecks decked out in military surplus equipment ready for civil war?

Inner cities with the homicide rate of Nigeria?


Do you think anyone in the world really aspires to become like you?

Our police is far from militarized unless you count hiring vets, which is 100% as long as they are trained - as long as anyone is trained.

We have PDs that buy surplus military vehicles. Know what happens to those vehicles 9/10 times? They get painted and shown off to the kids/in parades because there is no practical use for them. Some get retrofitted for riots to be small mobile command centers. The last one of heard of being actually used was during the shooting in Orlando to knock out a wall to get into the building. Damn militarization, right?

Homicide rates larger than Nigeria? What? If you're talking about Chicago its literally one section of Chicago, gang members killing gang members and come unfortunate bystanders.

You seem to have a major thorn in your side in regards to the US, thats your right. Doesn't mean you're right, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, Americans dont hold a "total" edge in technology military wise despite how hard they are trying to make us believe it. There are several categories where they trail second or even third place mainly in the missile technology.

Given same budget worldwide, i doubt America would make top 3 military. They are only the better army because of the ludicrous amount of money they pour in.

So America only has the top military because its good at running keeping its military ahead of others, gotcha.

[Kellhound]

Why not spend that money to ensure less American life is lost to diabetes, cardiac arrest and mass shootings? You know? The leading causes for loss of life?


I know warmongering is a way of life, but still.

The US spends more on health care than defense, even though defense and not health care is a requirement of the federal government to provide per the Constitution.

The true goal is to win wars without fighting.

[Theinquisition]

Why not spend that money to ensure less American life is lost to diabetes, cardiac arrest and mass shootings? You know? The leading causes for loss of life?


I know warmongering is a way of life, but still.

We actually spend more money on that than the military. Just saying.

[May90]

You seem to have a major thorn in your side in regards to the US, thats your right. Doesn't mean you're right, though.

He is just a Slav supremacist who hates everything Western. I wouldn't waste time with him if I were you.

[Xires]

why, again?

because the reason we spend as much is because it takes that much to be able to not only project our forces around the world in mass (the US is the ONLY country that can do this) and to upkeep the bases and military manpower it takes. We not only defend the US and its interests we also defend Europe and our allies in Asia. Since their has been only 1 super power we have had ZERO major wars like the world wars. Nothing has come even close to WW2 and hopefully we don't ever have to see a 3 because 4 could be fought with sticks and stones.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not spend that money to ensure less American life is lost to diabetes, cardiac arrest and mass shootings? You know? The leading causes for loss of life?


I know warmongering is a way of life, but still.

Mass shootings are NOT the leading cause of loss of life...not even remotely close.
More people are killed by car accidents by far. More people are killed by tobacco use by far.
Most gun deaths in the US are actually by suicide. The other bulk are gang members killing gang members.
Warmongering? Fuuuuuck you. Women like you need men like us because you would of been victims to somebody else a loooong time ago.

[ringpriest]

TI'm really, really not sure where you get off saying that the American doesn't have the strength of will to deal with war against a determined opponent. How many Iraqis died per American death on 9/11? Like, c'mon, what are you, stupid? Every country that has ever tried to sucker-punch the USA because it's "lacking in strength of will" literally does not exist anymore, and was made to not exist by the USA's backlash. The Confederate States of America, Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires" for good reason (the US is not winning the war there, it's just trying to avoid publicly admitting its lost for as long as possible); Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (and the fact that you think it did says volumes about your own ignorance); Imperial Japan, the German Empire, and the Confederacy have been dead and gone for over 70, almost 100, and over a century and half now - if you think they're relevant to today, generations down the line, then you've managed to exceed your mistake with Iraq and 9/11.

Here are some more recent examples that are more illuminating:

Fall of Saigon (1975)

In late April 1975, the outskirts of Saigon were reached by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). On April 29th, the United States knew that their token presence in the city would quickly become unwelcome, and the remaining Americans were evacuated by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft.

The surrender of Saigon was announced by the South Vietnamese president, General Duong Van Minh: "We are here to hand over to you the power in order to avoid bloodshed." General Minh had become South Vietnam’s president for two days as the country crumbled.

American Involvement in Lebanon (1984)

President Reagan has discovered in recent weeks, as others have before him, that Lebanon's conflicts seem to defy solution. Throughout the past 18 months of direct U.S. involvement in that country, his policy has been based on three objectives:“the withdrawal of all external forces” from the country;“a sovereign, independent Lebanon dedicated to national unity and able to exercise control throughout its national territory”; and “security for Israel's northern border.” The U.S. Marine contingent in the four-nation multinational peacekeeping force (MNF) stationed in Beirut was both the instrument of this policy and the symbol of American commitment to it.

By the end of February the Marines had been removed on Reagan's orders to Sixth Fleet ships offshore, Lebanese President Amin Gemayel had agreed to his foes' demands that he scrap a U.S.-mediated agreement between his country and Israel, and Soviet-supported Syria appeared solidly in control of Lebanon's destiny.

US troops withdraw as Somalis sign pact (1994)

They arrived 15 months ago trailing glory from the Gulf war and wrapped in the certainty that this was a humanitarian mission. Yesterday, the last substantial fighting unit of Americans left Somalia like released prisoners of war. They were taken off by boat from Mogadishu port without fanfare.

Only 50 marines will stay behind to guard the US embassy and about 10 servicemen will stay on at the UN headquarters to help with logistics for the remaining 19,000 UN troops. Once there were 20,000 American troops in Somalia. They were sent to save lives of starving Somalis by protecting food convoys but became embroiled in a vicious street war. On 3 October, 18 US servicemen were killed and President Bill Clinton ordered the rest home.

And, most recently, "Trump says US may not automatically defend Nato allies under attack",

Donald Trump has suggested that under his leadership America would not necessarily come to the aid of a Nato ally under attack, saying he would first consider how much they have contributed to the alliance.

That Trump was not tarred, feathered and run out of the nominee slot on a rail for his comments, instead holding on to the support of almost 40% of the American public tells us a great deal about America's "strength of will".

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires" for good reason (the US is not winning the war there, it's just trying to avoid publicly admitting its lost for as long as possible); Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (and the fact that you think it did says volumes about your own ignorance); Imperial Japan, the German Empire, and the Confederacy have been dead and gone for over 70, almost 100, and over a century and half now - if you think they're relevant to today, generations down the line, then you've managed to exceed your mistake with Iraq and 9/11.

Here are some more recent examples that are more illuminating:

Fall of Saigon (1975)

American Involvement in Lebanon (1984)

US troops withdraw as Somalis sign pact (1994)

And, most recently, "Trump says US may not automatically defend Nato allies under attack",


That Trump was not tarred, feathered and run out of the nominee slot on a rail for his comments, instead holding on to the support of almost 40% of the American public tells us a great deal about America's "strength of will".

Trump's comments are moronic, but the fact that some nato members keep their defense spending at levels below what they agreed to when they joined the alliance is BULL. But now the EU people are going to be making up for their underpayment with all the resources that will have to spent on the refugee crisis. So I guess it kind of evens out a little.