What detirmines military might?

[marine1]

Ja...like the innocent women and little children of Iraq had nothing to fear.

Yes exactly. They only have to fear their lunatic neighbours

 

[killadoob]

just because a country has more troops means nothing

the US may not have as many troops but i can assure you that their airforce and tomahawk missiles will soon change that

 

[Angelo]

Yes exactly. They only have to fear their lunatic neighbours

"They" can't fear no more, they are dead, thanks to US bombs!

 

[supersunbird]

Yes exactly. They only have to fear their lunatic neighbours

Hey Marine1, you never answered me about the US of A training and arming and funding terrorists in Central and South America in the 80's in another thread...

 

[Geriatrix]

just because a country has more troops means nothing

the US may not have as many troops but i can assure you that their airforce and tomahawk missiles will soon change that

Ah, but the problem with the advanced US missile systems and other digital unmanned systems is their dependence on satellite navigation and computer systems.

And China proved themselves capable of accurately and cheaply destroying satellites a couple of months back.

That little stunt exposed the US Achilles Heel.
China could theoretically take down the entire US communication, navigation and self defense systems without the US being able to do anything about it.

If I remember correctly the Pentagon shat themselves.

And lets not forget Chinas seemingly ease of accessing and controlling US military, energy and civilian computer systems. Remember Titan Rain?

Interesting times ahead.

 

[orin76]

just because a country has more troops means nothing

the US may not have as many troops but i can assure you that their airforce and tomahawk missiles will soon change that

Can the US defend itself against any overt military threat? Yes, but the ability of the US to impose it's military might on nations is limited by it's lack of manpower.
If your objective is to totally obliterate a nation then the US is more than able, but if you need to go door to door to find your enemies who are hidden among innocents (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq etc.) then you need old fashioned manpower.

 

[RompelStompel]

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains that victory.

General George S. Patton Jnr
Cavalry Journal (September 1933)

 

[McSack]

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains that victory.

General George S. Patton Jnr
Cavalry Journal (September 1933)

True until the advent of the nuke

 

[edc]

Being able to attain victory and being able to live afterwards to enjoy it. I joked earlier when I said "being able to Zerg rush early in the game" (nobody laughed but anyway). When you raise an army to fight an opponent you expect to win when you engage in battle. If you know that both your armies will be destroyed and that you will be unable to recover afterwards you continue to do research go gain the competitive edge you need to win a war, not a battle.

 

[Gnome]

Ah, but the problem with the advanced US missile systems and other digital unmanned systems is their dependence on satellite navigation and computer systems.

And China proved themselves capable of accurately and cheaply destroying satellites a couple of months back.

Military or civilian? Link? Military satellites are usually designed to be hard to find and there location is obviously kept secret.

Missiles don't need satellite's.

That little stunt exposed the US Achilles Heel.
China could theoretically take down the entire US communication, navigation and self defense systems without the US being able to do anything about it.

What about mobile communication systems? I saw one they deployed in Iraq to track the movement of potential STINGER(s) fired by the enemy (none were).

Interesting times ahead.

True, but I think either side fears the other really. To me it seems like a potential for a cold war pt2 ahead.

Also just because the intelligence we receive (IE we the civilians) doesn't mean the US or China for that matter knows more than they are leading each other to believe. Remember counter-intelligence is key

It's all a big game...

 

[RompelStompel]

True until the advent of the nuke

To a certain degree technological superiority is still negated by personnel quality.

 

[StrongTurd]

Military or civilian? Link? Military satellites are usually designed to be hard to find and there location is obviously kept secret.

Missiles don't need satellite's.

Not so. There are dozens of agencies around the world that regularly track anything in orbit around the earth right down to the size of a small bolt. NORAD in the US immediately comes to mind and the Russians and Chinese, amongst others, do likewise.

There is nothing hard to find about the orbit of ANY satellite (operational or retired) orbiting the earth. There are various sources on the internet that regularly publish databases containing the orbits of all satellites of the earth. A satellite launch is not something that you can hide. In fact, amateur satellite tracking is a fledging hobby.

What is not always published (especially with defence payloads) is the exact mission of a particular satellite. However, even this is typically fairly easy to figure out by looking at the orbital parameters of the craft. Different missions require different orbits.

The Chinese have not demonstrated the ability to destroy a GPS satellite, however. The GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of 20000km with an inclination of 55 degrees iirc. That is a very high orbit (halfway to geostationary) and it would require numerous engine burns taking many hours (at least) in order to reach for a hunter-killer satellite.

Even if such an attack was carried out successfully, there are at least another two dozen GPS satellites in orbit that would still function. The Chinese definitely do not have the capability to provide enough boosters quickly enough to destroy enough craft to disable the GPS network.

Still, if they (or anybody else) were ever able to achieve the downing of the GPS network, that would have very dire consequences for the US military. Sure, missiles have inertial navigation but the fact is that the entire world is becoming more dependant on GPS navigation by the day.

 

[Darth Garth]

Forgot the Inchon landings.

Indeed but that was before the Chinese intervention and all the gains since then (entire North Korea was under UN control) was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir

 

[RompelStompel]

Ta

 

[Mymilitary]

US is considered as the No:1 in military with respect to the number of soldiers and for other things like Aircraft,weapons it is equipped with most modern technology.

 

[StrongTurd]

US is considered as the No:1 in military with respect to the number of soldiers and for other things like Aircraft,weapons it is equipped with most modern technology.

Digging in the archives, are we?

The US is unquestionably the strongest military power in the world but that has not prevented them from being very unsuccessful in their foreign campaigns. They've been spending years throwing massive amounts of borrowed money at trying to subdue two backward little Middle East countries. If the USA knows what's good for it then they will stop fighting costly illegal wars and start worrying about the very real threat of them entering the biggest depression in human history.

 

[PeterCH]

Digging in the archives, are we?

The US is unquestionably the strongest military power in the world but that has not prevented them from being very unsuccessful in their foreign campaigns. They've been spending years throwing massive amounts of borrowed money at trying to subdue two backward little Middle East countries. If the USA knows what's good for it then they will stop fighting costly illegal wars and start worrying about the very real threat of them entering the biggest depression in human history.

Yes but the Soviet Union couldn't even suppress Afghanistan while the
Americans sorted that out much better (the Soviets had to cower in their
bases, NATO has free reign over most of Afghanistan), Iraq (most of that is
under control) and Balkans (they sorted out Serbia - I disagreed with that but they did anyway). Not to mention on a proxy basis they are beating
the Al Quada in Somalia.

 

[Pitbull]

Man power and funds

 

[TheHiveMind]

Its all about:

1:Nukes
2:Aircraft carriers/Aircraft
3ropoganda
4:Cruisers
5:Intelligence/Spying

With those in place, you should have enough info to make very informed decisions.
From there, you knock out/Hijack a countries infrastructure and then hold it hostage.
Water, electricity, fuel, supply lines etc.
Wait for vulnerabilities to emerge and then act on them when they do.

Information quadruples the effectiveness of everything in your arsenal.

Propoganda can help with recruiting, funding, morale etc etc

 

[Flanders]

Ah, but the problem with the advanced US missile systems and other digital unmanned systems is their dependence on satellite navigation and computer systems.

And China proved themselves capable of accurately and cheaply destroying satellites a couple of months back.

That little stunt exposed the US Achilles Heel.
China could theoretically take down the entire US communication, navigation and self defense systems without the US being able to do anything about it.

If I remember correctly the Pentagon shat themselves.

And lets not forget Chinas seemingly ease of accessing and controlling US military, energy and civilian computer systems. Remember Titan Rain?

Interesting times ahead.

Also, if a technology were to be developed that made conventional radar redundant then all the time and effort put into existing stealth technology would be for nil-something the US relies on heavily in a shock and awe campaign. I know that could be considered far fetched but as was proven in WW2, in times of heavy conflict, the drive to out-gun the opposition is immense to say the least.