is the US at least still strong when it comes to military might?

[zealo]

Yes, if Germany was split in half in 1918, there would have been no WW2...

WW1 ended in a manner sufficient to allow for building of resentment in the losers, but at the same time it wasn't harsh enough to prevent electric boogaloo 2 from occuring.

As a certain Ferdinand Foch said in 1919, this is not a peace, it's an armistice for 20 years. He was off by only some 60 days on that prediction. The Entente should have driven the war all the way to Berlin before ending it, and then splitting Germany up into a whole bunch of more postwar Austria sized countries.

[Slant]

Yes you have to look at it in context, the way WWI ended was what gave the Nazi Party something to focus peoples' anger on and drum up nationalism. The Treaty of Versailles was intended to humiliate the German people, and Hitler took full advantage of it.
[/B]

That's too simplistic a view, especially when the Locarno Treaty and the subsequent suspension of reparation payments happened around '32. The Versailles Treaty was too lenient if anything. As 1945 demonstrated, by the way. It's a common mistake in current US military adventures that if you decide to go and fuck someone's day up, make sure to actually fuck someone's day up properly. Don't half ass war. You need to break their back. Otherwise what's the point of going to war in the first place? Things are going wrong with you right now because basically everyone correctly identifies your "military strength" as you being a bully, is all. There is no constructive policy coming out of the US in recent decades.

Anyway, you made your point. I disagree, that's really all there is to it. Just wanted to remind you of the danger of just following nazi dogma without questioning it. Another common error I see in Americans these days.

- - - Updated - - -

Military power is the measure of one's ability to destroy the enemy's material and kill their troops. That is what we are discussing, not the ability of the US to occupy territory after a conventional war has been fought or influence the locals to accept rule by unpopular leaders. The US is the only country that can perform power projection on the scale needed to invade a foreign country halfway around the world. The US is also one of the few countries that has sufficient strength and size to be invulnerable to invasion is geographically isolated enough to make invasion unfeasible.

Oh, and Britain did a great job with The Troubles...

There, fixed that for ya.

[Kellhound]

That's too simplistic a view, especially when the Locarno Treaty and the subsequent suspension of reparation payments happened around '32. The Versailles Treaty was too lenient if anything. As 1945 demonstrated, by the way. It's a common mistake in current US military adventures that if you decide to go and fuck someone's day up, make sure to actually fuck someone's day up properly. Don't half ass war. You need to break their back. Otherwise what's the point of going to war in the first place? Things are going wrong with you right now because basically everyone correctly identifies your "military strength" as you being a bully, is all. There is no constructive policy coming out of the US in recent decades.

Anyway, you made your point. I disagree, that's really all there is to it. Just wanted to remind you of the danger of just following nazi dogma without questioning it. Another common error I see in Americans these days.

- - - Updated - - -



There, fixed that for ya.

Here is the thing, the GERMANS bought into the Nazi dogma because the ending off WWI made it very easy to play on Germany's nationalism. It doesn't matter if the Treaty actually harmed Germany (which it did, just not to the extent the Nazi's made it out to be), what mattered is what the German populace decided to believe. The truth is often irrelevant in politics.

Breaking a country doesn't really work (look at Poland), giving people enough so they are not willing to risk losing it works.

The US has about 7,450 miles of land borders, which makes it far less isolated than the UK is from continental Europe.

[Crispin]

I honestly do not think we'll ever see a world war, in the way WW1 or WW2 were fought. Anyone starting a fight, will have to deal with a devastating attack in a "city near you" early in the war. This was not the initial case in neither WW1 or WW2. Technology has simply made major wars, come with too high a cost to the country waging the war.

Proxy wars, and political discord will be the new black, for major powers.

[Zan15]

Cobra is not wise to take in this day and age. If you become employed again, you will be eligible for corporate sponsored health care in accordance with the employer's requirements. Honestly, I would rather use the marketplace and tax credit vs almost any employer provided insurance anyway. It can be a much better bargain unless you have a rare really good employer plan that pays for families as well.



***However, this is all off topic and I will be dropping it before it causes this thread to close.***

Last response cause I agree with off topic statement....

If you were laid off you are eligible the next enrollment cycle. For most companies it would be 1/1/2021. Some companies have them mid year, so you could be screwed for almost a full year.

If your employer pays a part of the insurance, it could easily surpass any tax credit the ACA gives you.
In the majority of the cases they do and if you were to compare A to A plans the private plan + employers payment will almost always be the better option

[Kellhound]

I honestly do not think we'll ever see a world war, in the way WW1 or WW2 were fought. Anyone starting a fight, will have to deal with a devastating attack in a "city near you" early in the war. This was not the initial case in neither WW1 or WW2. Technology has simply made major wars, come with too high a cost to the country waging the war.

Proxy wars, and political discord will be the new black, for major powers.

A significant conflict in an isolated area is very much a possibility between major powers.

[Easo]

My Friends and I were in long huge debate talking about what if "USA VS WORLD" as in war, who would win and why? Funded armies and superior weapons, vehicles, transportation and etc! Can USA HOLD ON IT OWN against the entire world army?

Yep, if you mean can world defeat USA, but not can USA conquer the entire world. Enough fleet to singlehandedly control most of Pacific and Atlantic, which in turns prevents anyone from landing any reasonably large force in Americas. And literally no one in the world has even close to enough troopships and landingships to stage mass invasion in the first play anyways...

As for land - north gets secured fast, as Canada has no chance in hell (but almost guaranteed will show the biggest resistance in Americas). Same goes for south and Mexico - they have an absolute lack of heavy hardware (no enemies to have them in the first place). Hold the line over peninsula somewhere around central Mexico and dig in.
Bomb any moron who tries to move up north via Central America and it can continue forever - world cannot reliably reinforce Central/South Americas and those simply don't have firepower to do anything about it. USA has enough manpower, raw resources and manufacturing capability to keep that up. Biggest issue would be decisively winning first naval battles before everyone can group up and dealing with ballistic missiles coming in to wreck army bases and manufacturing plants.

This, of course, is a scenario without nukes being involved.

[Thekri]

Yep, if you mean can world defeat USA, but not can USA conquer the entire world. Enough fleet to singlehandedly control most of Pacific and Atlantic, which in turns prevents anyone from landing any reasonably large force in Americas. And literally no one in the world has even close to enough troopships and landingships to stage mass invasion in the first play anyways...

As for land - north gets secured fast, as Canada has no chance in hell (but almost guaranteed will show the biggest resistance in Americas). Same goes for south and Mexico - they have an absolute lack of heavy hardware (no enemies to have them in the first place). Hold the line over peninsula somewhere around central Mexico and dig in.
Bomb any moron who tries to move up north via Central America and it can continue forever - world cannot reliably reinforce Central/South Americas and those simply don't have firepower to do anything about it. USA has enough manpower, raw resources and manufacturing capability to keep that up. Biggest issue would be decisively winning first naval battles before everyone can group up and dealing with ballistic missiles coming in to wreck army bases and manufacturing plants.

This, of course, is a scenario without nukes being involved.

The bigger problem is resources in a long war scenario. While the US could become reasonably self-efficient with just control of North America, it would take a LOT of work to get that way. And its economy wouldn't grow, it would slowly shrink away, while the rest of the world would continue to prosper quite well. Yes, nobody could really decisively invade, but at a certain point air attacks would get unmanageable. When the world's large economies actually got into high gear in military production, the US naval dominance could disappear fast. The US has huge advantages in a short war, but a long war is unwinnable, at least alone.

The real strength of the US military is the friends we made along the way. That is tongue in cheek, but absolutely true. The US is the only nation on the planet that still maintains a level expeditionary mobilization. In other words, it is the only military that can effectively fight a significant size war on another continent. It can do this, and our allies can get away without doing the same, because the US eliminated all its competition by making friends with them all. Truman and Eisenhower were the architects of a world order that saw all the worlds most significant economies formed into a global alliance. This alliance has been amazingly resilient, and has really no parallel in how well everyone has gotten along for so long. The US military isn't built to "Fight the world". It is built to fight alongside the whole world. We integrate British, German, Australian, Japanese, and Canadian forces into our operations smoothly and constantly, because that is how all those militaries are designed to fight. When I was in Afghanistan, at various times I reported to Polish, Romanian, and German officers, all smoothly integrated into our operations. This is nearly totally frictionless.

I do get the scenario is a thought exercise, but the reality is that our fate is intertwined with our allies. We couldn't really stand on our own either economically or militarily, at least not forever.

[Kellhound]

The bigger problem is resources in a long war scenario. While the US could become reasonably self-efficient with just control of North America, it would take a LOT of work to get that way. And its economy wouldn't grow, it would slowly shrink away, while the rest of the world would continue to prosper quite well. Yes, nobody could really decisively invade, but at a certain point air attacks would get unmanageable. When the world's large economies actually got into high gear in military production, the US naval dominance could disappear fast. The US has huge advantages in a short war, but a long war is unwinnable, at least alone.

The real strength of the US military is the friends we made along the way. That is tongue in cheek, but absolutely true. The US is the only nation on the planet that still maintains a level expeditionary mobilization. In other words, it is the only military that can effectively fight a significant size war on another continent. It can do this, and our allies can get away without doing the same, because the US eliminated all its competition by making friends with them all. Truman and Eisenhower were the architects of a world order that saw all the worlds most significant economies formed into a global alliance. This alliance has been amazingly resilient, and has really no parallel in how well everyone has gotten along for so long. The US military isn't built to "Fight the world". It is built to fight alongside the whole world. We integrate British, German, Australian, Japanese, and Canadian forces into our operations smoothly and constantly, because that is how all those militaries are designed to fight. When I was in Afghanistan, at various times I reported to Polish, Romanian, and German officers, all smoothly integrated into our operations. This is nearly totally frictionless.

I do get the scenario is a thought exercise, but the reality is that our fate is intertwined with our allies. We couldn't really stand on our own either economically or militarily, at least not forever.

Even just on its own, invading the US would make invading Afghanistan look like a tea party. The US is about the size of Europe and has ~120 civilian firearms for every 100 people (10x the number as Afghanistan) and many/most are in the hands of nationalist who would object highly to being invaded.

[Thekri]

Even just on its own, invading the US would make invading Afghanistan look like a tea party. The US is about the size of Europe and has ~120 civilian firearms for every 100 people (10x the number as Afghanistan) and many/most are in the hands of nationalist who would object highly to being invaded.

I am aware of that. I was quite clear the US couldn't be invaded, really with any number of forces. However, it also couldn't win a conventional war with the entire planet. It could survive nearly indefinitely, but its economy couldn't keep up, not without trade and foreign resources/labor. Eventually, it would lose naval supremacy, lose the ability to protect its own airspace, and wind up isolated with its key infrastructure destroyed at will. Even then, it couldn't be invaded, but it would be rendered desolate, impoverished, and mostly helpless (minus nukes, which we aren't considering in this scenario). It would eventually seek terms.

Empires have fallen many times before, as I mentioned, the only thing that makes the US historically unique is its system of alliances. The British Empire at its height had servants and rivals, but very few friends. The same is true of every other great empire before America. The US maintains its position by NOT being at war with the world.

[Kellhound]

I am aware of that. I was quite clear the US couldn't be invaded, really with any number of forces. However, it also couldn't win a conventional war with the entire planet. It could survive nearly indefinitely, but its economy couldn't keep up, not without trade and foreign resources/labor. Eventually, it would lose naval supremacy, lose the ability to protect its own airspace, and wind up isolated with its key infrastructure destroyed at will. Even then, it couldn't be invaded, but it would be rendered desolate, impoverished, and mostly helpless (minus nukes, which we aren't considering in this scenario). It would eventually seek terms.

Empires have fallen many times before, as I mentioned, the only thing that makes the US historically unique is its system of alliances. The British Empire at its height had servants and rivals, but very few friends. The same is true of every other great empire before America. The US maintains its position by NOT being at war with the world.

Its more of what you have at the beginning of the war, any projections after the first month or two would depend highly on the status of forces then.

[Thekri]

Its more of what you have at the beginning of the war, any projections after the first month or two would depend highly on the status of forces then.

Not really, current forces are far less indicative of the result than economic and geographic considerations. Long wars are actually much easier to predict than long wars. Most historians agree that the American Civil War and WWII Pacific War were forgone conclusions if the war went on more than roughly a year. Same situation here, while the US could do tremendous damage out of the gate, it lacks the ability to actually conquer the planet, and thus, it can't close out the war on its own terms unless its opponents yield. All they have to do is not quit the fight, and they will inevitably win. There just isn't a scenario that the US comes out ahead in a long conventional war.

Predicting the results of tactical and operational engagements is about as reliable as predicting which way the stock market will move tomorrow. However predicting the way a long war goes is about the same as predicting if the stock market will be higher or lower as a running average over the next 5 years. That is pretty easy to predict with good reliability.

[Kellhound]

Not really, current forces are far less indicative of the result than economic and geographic considerations. Long wars are actually much easier to predict than long wars. Most historians agree that the American Civil War and WWII Pacific War were forgone conclusions if the war went on more than roughly a year. Same situation here, while the US could do tremendous damage out of the gate, it lacks the ability to actually conquer the planet, and thus, it can't close out the war on its own terms unless its opponents yield. All they have to do is not quit the fight, and they will inevitably win. There just isn't a scenario that the US comes out ahead in a long conventional war.

Predicting the results of tactical and operational engagements is about as reliable as predicting which way the stock market will move tomorrow. However predicting the way a long war goes is about the same as predicting if the stock market will be higher or lower as a running average over the next 5 years. That is pretty easy to predict with good reliability.

Long term requires the sustainment of the entire world being against the US, and I will point out WWII was based on the defender winning long term. If the US secures its northern and southern borders, the cost to attack the US would be crippling long term even for the entire world.

[Easo]

The bigger problem is resources in a long war scenario. While the US could become reasonably self-efficient with just control of North America, it would take a LOT of work to get that way. And its economy wouldn't grow, it would slowly shrink away, while the rest of the world would continue to prosper quite well. Yes, nobody could really decisively invade, but at a certain point air attacks would get unmanageable. When the world's large economies actually got into high gear in military production, the US naval dominance could disappear fast. The US has huge advantages in a short war, but a long war is unwinnable, at least alone.

Heh, air attacks would most likely become unmanagable for the attackers. What is the biggest air force in the world? USA Air Force. What is the second biggest? USA Navy... Overall States air power, alone, is larger than most of the world put together, pure numbers. But range is issue anyway, and there are veeeeery few countries who have strategic bombers, who still would need to be escorted - a real problem over Europe for example, but can be up to a point supported by carrier aircraft, and absolutely impossible the other way for almost everyone...
And nothing in Central/South Americas would pose a challenge to bomb into dust and make them unable to answer.
Yes, it would be war of atrittion. This is not WW2 anymore, you cannot safely make stuff behind Urals/over ocean anymore as long as your frontline holds. There are really not many fighter jet factories and jets takes somewhere ~around a year or more to build (depends on multiple factors).
Many, many variables...
Anyway, this is a deep theoryland, probably time to stop going too deep and serious.

[Slant]

Here is the thing, the GERMANS bought into the Nazi dogma because the ending off WWI made it very easy to play on Germany's nationalism. It doesn't matter if the Treaty actually harmed Germany (which it did, just not to the extent the Nazi's made it out to be), what mattered is what the German populace decided to believe. The truth is often irrelevant in politics.

Breaking a country doesn't really work (look at Poland), giving people enough so they are not willing to risk losing it works.

The US has about 7,450 miles of land borders, which makes it far less isolated than the UK is from continental Europe.

So basically nothing is of importance, because propaganda dictates everything, no matter how stupid it is. That seems to be how certain countries are run these days, so you're totally on the right track there, I guess.

What is this age called? Post-truth era?

[Kellhound]

So basically nothing is of importance, because propaganda dictates everything, no matter how stupid it is. That seems to be how certain countries are run these days, so you're totally on the right track there, I guess.

That is how most countries are run today, yesterday, and most likely tomorrow.

[Thee ANCOM]

unfortunately, yes, and neither presidential candidate seems intereted in changing that.

[Monster Hunter]

Military power is the measure of one's ability to destroy the enemy's material and kill their troops. That is what we are discussing, not the ability of the US to occupy territory after a conventional war has been fought or influence the locals to accept rule by unpopular leaders. The US is the only country that can perform power projection on the scale needed to invade a foreign country halfway around the world. The US is also one of the few countries that has sufficient strength and size to be invulnerable to invasion.

Oh, and Britain did a great job with The Troubles...

Britain killed more enemy troops and destroyed more enemy material with politics than it ever needed to do with an expensive army.

as for the troubles, northern Ireland is still in the Uk for now, it was never going to leave because we replaced the population of ulster in the 1700's with Scottish protestants that would never stand being ruled by a Catholics. it might leave in the future, as that old religious divide is less of thing with the younger generation and its now more of a political ideological divide between republicans and loyalists, but time will tell.

not sure why you bring it up though as its in a much smaller league than Americas fuck ups, lest i remind you.

UK troubles deaths over the whole period from 1960 = 2,617(most civilian)
UK iraq deaths = 222
UK afghan deaths = 546
Uk Falklands war = 258 (power projection half way round the world without needing Friends with airbases bud)
Uk Korean War = 1109
UK Malayan Emergency = 519 (aka Britain's Vietnam)
UK Indonesian National Revolution = 1200


Vietnam Us deaths: 211,454
Korean us deaths war: 128,650
Afghan war us deaths: 22,266
Iraq war us deaths: 36,710

Politics, foreign policy, espionage, wet work, its all part of war weather you like it or not, a mighty army lead by fools is still a foolish army.

the US has 1.3million troops and cant keep the middle east in order,

Britain ran a globe spanning empire with only 497,043 men at its height, fighting multiple wars across the globe at the same time.

fight smarter not harder and you might not have a military that's just an expensive embarrassment.

the amount of american life you waste by repeatedly electing incompetence to put in charge of them should be a bloody crime.

[draynay]

Vietnam Us deaths: 211,454
Korean us deaths war: 128,650
Afghan war us deaths: 22,266
Iraq war us deaths: 36,710

All wrong...

Are you listing casualties and calling them deaths? Are you not aware of the distinction?

[Thekri]

All wrong...

Are you listing casualties and calling them deaths? Are you not aware of the distinction?

Either that or he added a couple zeros, because those numbers are WAY off.