4 ms·

> There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle I guess that really depends on what you consider a "1-1 mi

by fiblye 6y ago

> There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle I guess that really depends on what you consider a "1-1 military battle." Gentlemanly warfare used to be people marching and staying in formation and going straight at each other until they died. With that battle strategy, the victor is generally going to be the one with more people covering more ground. But that strategy hasn't been used in a long while, because there are smarter ways to fight. Tanks and so on are the old way of fighting battle. The US has a decidedly bad post-WW2 record since nobody is really fighting by the "old ways" that much of the American military fights by, and the biggest advantage is the US can just drop bombs indiscriminately basically forever (decidedly not 1-1 combat) and hope to destroy every living thing imaginable (which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards). The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. There are theoretical situations where maybe the US has more people, more money, more whatever and will win if you line soldiers up and have them fight Napoleonic style, but in reality, successful wars following WW2 include... the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power, ending up with the unmanageable chaotic wars we've had in the middle east these past 2 decades.

pdonis 6y ago
> which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards Dropping bombs didn't fail in Vietnam. It succeeded. North Vietnam was defeated militarily. They only took over South Vietnam after the US Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing funding so the US troops had to leave. > The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. Certainly it is. Given a clear objective, the US military has achieved it in every case. The reasons that the US often fails to capitalize on such victories are political, not military. > the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power Because removing Saddam from power was explicitly not a military objective in that war; the military objective was to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, and that objective was met. When the US decided it did want to remove Saddam from power, in the second Gulf War, it succeeded. Again, the reasons why the aftermath of that war became a debacle were political, not military.
- fiblye 6y ago
  Americans were fighting in Vietnam for about a decade. Bombing was already at high levels in 1965. America pulled out a decade later. The idea that bombing was working and political issues were the only reason America failed aren't supported by any facts. Saying politics were the issue is mostly used merely an unfalsifiable statement. If the goal of the wars are redefined to some really narrow goal like just eliminating Saddam, which is revisionist at best, it seems like sending in troops when one targeted bomb on a political event would've worked better is a big oversight. The invasion just caused chaos and more trouble and we still haven't gotten ourselves out of it. Afghanistan is also total chaos, 20 years later. Military might sure isn't helping there. In most recent conflicts, the winners are generally people with motivation to fight and unpredictable attacks. Sending in aircraft carriers and deploying 50000 young guys to a place they don't know or care about is neither unpredictable or fueled by any deep motivation. People handed a gun and taught how to make a bomb and acting to protect their family from foreign invaders are both.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    It seems probably maybe you would actually agree with the OP. They would say, "given no interference from politicians the US Military would win" and you might say "yes but politicians always interfere, there's no such thing as 'no interference'" Any of the situations you highlighted all have restrictions set by politicians, not military. For example full military might hasn't been released in Afghanistan. The politicians restrict what the military is allowed to do there. I'm not saying that's good or bad. In my un-informed opinion we shouldn't be there. But you can't claim it's the military losing there when the military is not allowed to actually use all its power and resources.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Nah, America was losing Vietnam. It couldn't be won the way it was fought. That country is no slouch. Within three decades they fought off three world superpowers. Veteran soldiers, local knowledge, sympathetic populace, terrain advantage. None of America's aims could have been achieved there meaningfully. Big guys lose to small guys all the time. Sometimes you've got to know how much it's worth risking. Britain was a world hegemon. Still lost to an upstart collection of colonies.
unishark 6y ago
> I guess that really depends on what you consider a "1-1 military battle." Gentlemanly warfare used to be people marching and staying in formation and going straight at each other until they died. With that battle strategy, the victor is generally going to be the one with more people covering more ground. The US practically pioneered modern "all out war" with the civil war, which is certainly nothing like gentlemanly colonial wars. Trench warfare in WW1 turned every attack into an ambush basically. Of course by ww2, air power and moving fast with technology crushed that. It's certainly important to add context to history by talking about the larger picture and how things play out practically. But we really don't need to replace every word with a metaphor that has a political statement behind it. Narrowing the argument to military objectives specifically (as opposed to political), and considering whether one side or the other has the ability to achieve them, is still important because when wars are against existential threats, those political gloves will come off.

by fiblye 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards Dropping bombs didn't fail in Vietnam. It succeeded. North Vietnam was defeated militarily. They only took over South Vietnam after the US Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing funding so the US troops had to leave. > The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. Certainly it is. Given a clear objective, the US military has achieved it in every case. The reasons that the US often fails to capitalize on such victories are political, not military. > the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power Because removing Saddam from power was explicitly not a military objective in that war; the military objective was to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, and that objective was met. When the US decided it did want to remove Saddam from power, in the second Gulf War, it succeeded. Again, the reasons why the aftermath of that war became a debacle were political, not military.

fiblye 6y ago
Americans were fighting in Vietnam for about a decade. Bombing was already at high levels in 1965. America pulled out a decade later. The idea that bombing was working and political issues were the only reason America failed aren't supported by any facts. Saying politics were the issue is mostly used merely an unfalsifiable statement. If the goal of the wars are redefined to some really narrow goal like just eliminating Saddam, which is revisionist at best, it seems like sending in troops when one targeted bomb on a political event would've worked better is a big oversight. The invasion just caused chaos and more trouble and we still haven't gotten ourselves out of it. Afghanistan is also total chaos, 20 years later. Military might sure isn't helping there. In most recent conflicts, the winners are generally people with motivation to fight and unpredictable attacks. Sending in aircraft carriers and deploying 50000 young guys to a place they don't know or care about is neither unpredictable or fueled by any deep motivation. People handed a gun and taught how to make a bomb and acting to protect their family from foreign invaders are both.
- greggman3 6y ago
  It seems probably maybe you would actually agree with the OP. They would say, "given no interference from politicians the US Military would win" and you might say "yes but politicians always interfere, there's no such thing as 'no interference'" Any of the situations you highlighted all have restrictions set by politicians, not military. For example full military might hasn't been released in Afghanistan. The politicians restrict what the military is allowed to do there. I'm not saying that's good or bad. In my un-informed opinion we shouldn't be there. But you can't claim it's the military losing there when the military is not allowed to actually use all its power and resources.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Nah, America was losing Vietnam. It couldn't be won the way it was fought. That country is no slouch. Within three decades they fought off three world superpowers. Veteran soldiers, local knowledge, sympathetic populace, terrain advantage. None of America's aims could have been achieved there meaningfully. Big guys lose to small guys all the time. Sometimes you've got to know how much it's worth risking. Britain was a world hegemon. Still lost to an upstart collection of colonies.

unishark 6y ago

> I guess that really depends on what you consider a "1-1 military battle." Gentlemanly warfare used to be people marching and staying in formation and going straight at each other until they died. With that battle strategy, the victor is generally going to be the one with more people covering more ground. The US practically pioneered modern "all out war" with the civil war, which is certainly nothing like gentlemanly colonial wars. Trench warfare in WW1 turned every attack into an ambush basically. Of course by ww2, air power and moving fast with technology crushed that. It's certainly important to add context to history by talking about the larger picture and how things play out practically. But we really don't need to replace every word with a metaphor that has a political statement behind it. Narrowing the argument to military objectives specifically (as opposed to political), and considering whether one side or the other has the ability to achieve them, is still important because when wars are against existential threats, those political gloves will come off.