America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by delta1. 47 replies replies.
How Powerful is the US Military
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Buckwheat Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Three things:

1. The United States is the only nation that can conceivably fight a two-front war and win one (if not both) conflicts.
2. Within 7-10 days the United States can put three divisions (lacking heavy weaponry unfortunately) anywhere on the planet by air transport.
3. The US Navy is the only naval force that has major naval assets in all of the world's oceans and many of its important seas. Short of using nuclear weapons (itself a bad idea given the US's quantitative and qualitative edge in that arena as well) no other nation on Earth can force the US out of those waters or even seriously engage it in a lengthy battle.

And this is our peace time force. I think any country would be foolish to try and bring a non-nuclear war to our doorsteps. M'rica F-Yeah!! ram27bat
Speyside Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Interesting, but why is this on your mind?
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
MERICA..!! ram27bat
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 9:03 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,582
The best way to fight America is to weaken it from within and attack with an EMP. Only Massachusetts has hardened their grid. Then you start swinging, or sit back and watch the mother burn.
Buckwheat Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Speyside wrote:
Interesting, but why is this on your mind?


Got the info in an e-mail and thought it was interesting and accurate. I've long been interested the history of wars and the US's involvement in them. I'm of the opinion that if you don't know your history you are more likely to repeat the mistakes that have led countless countries to try and solve disputes via armed conflict. fog
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 9:34 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
True.. true.... did they ever build a basement in the Alamo..?? Huh
delta1 Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
The most powerful military ever...but President Eisenhower, one of the greatest American generals, warned of the military-industrial complex taking control of decision making in America...we spend more on our military than the next seven top countries combined...and yet it is not enough...
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
it would be even greater if the spending were under control... Trump is working on that by negotiating with the manufacturers and stuff... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 12:50 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
ZRX1200 wrote:
Only Massachusetts has hardened their grid.

serious question, what does that mean?

Thanks
delta1 Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 12:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
He was thinking of driving his van over there, but realized that security measures have increased since the Marathon bombing...
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I thought about googling it but changed my mind... Unsure
MACS Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 1:35 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,747
delta1 wrote:
The most powerful military ever...but President Eisenhower, one of the greatest American generals, warned of the military-industrial complex taking control of decision making in America...we spend more on our military than the next seven top countries combined...and yet it is not enough...


Big government. Big companies. In bed together.

We need an overwhelming military. We need to keep ahead on technological advances. We do not need to waste money the way we do, though, with overpriced gov't contracts for friends and family of politicians.
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 2:06 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,582
Frank, it means infrastructure such as power lines and communication lines are shielded from an EMP.

William R. Forstchen wrote a series (new book to be released next January) about this subject. Though it is a fictional series he's a very informed advocate who's testified to government agencies about this and advocates for preparedness.

1 Second After
1 Year After

^ first two books.
rumraider Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 4:07 PM EST
Joined: 08-05-2012
Posts: 727
If i remember correctly (less likely all the time): Ike said beware of the CONGRESSIONAL-military-industrial complex. We always forget to include the people who are supposed to be the watchdogs and instead often sell said people out for peanuts
rumraider Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 4:09 PM EST
Joined: 08-05-2012
Posts: 727
Said = us
tailgater Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 5:21 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
1 second after is on my short list.
Hadn't heard about 1 year after.
Thanks.
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Jun 16 2017, 6:25 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank, it means infrastructure such as power lines and communication lines are shielded from an EMP.

William R. Forstchen wrote a series (new book to be released next January) about this subject. Though it is a fictional series he's a very informed advocate who's testified to government agencies about this and advocates for preparedness.

1 Second After
1 Year After

^ first two books.

massholes done good, huh?
thanks for the book tip as well.
Mr. Jones Offline
#18 Posted: Sun, Jun 18 2017, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,419
The U.S. MILITARY IS GREAT...
AND
D.U.M.B....

TOO
BOOT..

JUST LIKE
T.R.U.M.P.

ORDER A case of "D" sized batteries @ MISSOURI ARMY BASE...and it comes from the NEW CUMBERLAND ARMY DEPOT IN
NEW CUMBERLAND , PA... AFTER IT WAS DROPPED SHIPPED FROM A MASSIVE SEMI TRAILER TRUCK LOAD OF "D" sized batteries from a manufacturer in Missouri... The order gets UPS'd or FED-EX'd from New Cumberland, PA back to MISSOURI...

^^^ dat' der' is *****ING stupidity at it's BEST.
DrafterX Offline
#19 Posted: Sun, Jun 18 2017, 8:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Contracts is contracts... Mellow
MACS Offline
#20 Posted: Sun, Jun 18 2017, 9:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,747
DrafterX wrote:
Contracts is contracts... Mellow


Yup... and as I stated, contracts are the problem.
bgz Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, Jun 18 2017, 10:40 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank, it means infrastructure such as power lines and communication lines are shielded from an EMP.

William R. Forstchen wrote a series (new book to be released next January) about this subject. Though it is a fictional series he's a very informed advocate who's testified to government agencies about this and advocates for preparedness.

1 Second After
1 Year After

^ first two books.


Hmm, didn't know that. I don't know if they shield to prevent a man made emp blast specifically... I think it's more to shield against bigger solar flares.

I hope all the states do this, should be mandatory. Solar flares are real, so are crazy short, fat Koreans who want to throw nukes at us :D
dstieger Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 9:10 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Mr. Jones wrote:
The U.S. MILITARY IS GREAT...
AND
D.U.M.B....

TOO
BOOT..

JUST LIKE
T.R.U.M.P.

ORDER A case of "D" sized batteries @ MISSOURI ARMY BASE...and it comes from the NEW CUMBERLAND ARMY DEPOT IN
NEW CUMBERLAND , PA... AFTER IT WAS DROPPED SHIPPED FROM A MASSIVE SEMI TRAILER TRUCK LOAD OF "D" sized batteries from a manufacturer in Missouri... The order gets UPS'd or FED-EX'd from New Cumberland, PA back to MISSOURI...

^^^ dat' der' is *****ING stupidity at it's BEST.


Why?

What is your analysis that shows that it would be cheaper to buy small quantities (at certainly higher procurement cost) locally? Or buy and stock (hazardous) material at/or close to every base that might need them. Would that manufacturer have accepted small contracts for local delivery? Or would that have meant introducing a middleman distributor with his own cut?

I'm not familiar with that shipment or contract, but I am familiar with DoD procurement, storage and distribution....and it is NEVER as simple as it appears. EVEN if the answer to all of my questions indicate that it might be cheaper to have done it some other way, there are almost ALWAYS contracting rules PUT IN PLACE BY YOUR CONGRESS that prevent DoD from doing things the 'cheapest' way.
Mr. Jones Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 9:55 AM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,419
#22 dstieger∆∆∆

If you know DOD PROCURMENT... you prolly know my EX-GIRLFRIEND @ the NEW CUMBERLAND ARMY DEPOT AND "SECRET FUSION CENTER"...JULIE "C".... Who turned out TO BE a Rat **** FBI-SSG AGENT\INFORMANT NARC who almost got me killed and \or incarcerated with her SSG COLLUSION AGREEMENT and selling me out for CASH.
I'LL NEVER DATE another gash with TOP LEVEL SECURITY CLEARANCES ( EXCEPT THAT HOT AS H3LL BLONDE GASH FBI AGENT "Ufftie")
delta1 Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 4:25 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
Not only is the US military vastly more superior and capable of defeating any enemy in conventional warfare (we can land crushing blows on any attack force by sea, land or air, while they are en route), our communications and cyber capability can interfere with any enemy nation's military command and control systems.

While it is inarguable that we have the ability to defend the homeland against any invasion by a hostile enemy, it is up to us, the American people, to prevent our leaders from dragging us into a war on foreign soil with unclear objectives and restrictive ROE, where our superiority can be tested...
ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 5:01 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,582
bgz, either can cause a Carrington Event.

And getting to the predicted envelop on the solar side.
bgz Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
True, I would think it would be more likely for a Carrington like event to happen than an enemy emp for wide scale damage.

Both are actually unlikely, which is probably the reason states are so lax on their implementation of it.

Better to prepare sooner than too late though!
Burner02 Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,876
Buckwheat wrote:
Three things:

1. The United States is the only nation that can conceivably fight a two-front war and win one (if not both) conflicts.
2. Within 7-10 days the United States can put three divisions (lacking heavy weaponry unfortunately) anywhere on the planet by air transport.
3. The US Navy is the only naval force that has major naval assets in all of the world's oceans and many of its important seas. Short of using nuclear weapons (itself a bad idea given the US's quantitative and qualitative edge in that arena as well) no other nation on Earth can force the US out of those waters or even seriously engage it in a lengthy battle.

And this is our peace time force. I think any country would be foolish to try and bring a non-nuclear war to our doorsteps. M'rica F-Yeah!! ram27bat



You need to do a little research on the two front war thingy capability. We the U.S.A. have not been in that shape or status for several years now.

If you think we can take on China and Russia at the same time, I have some prime beach front property in Alaska for a buck fifty an acre.
bgz Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 7:26 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Burner02 wrote:
You need to do a little research on the two front war thingy capability. We the U.S.A. have not been in that shape or status for several years now.

If you think we can take on China and Russia at the same time, I have some prime beach front property in Alaska for a buck fifty an acre.


That's cheap!!!
delta1 Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 7:39 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
What scenario would motivate any two or more countries to engage in such hostile activities that endanger or take US lives that we would determine that going to war on two fronts is the best course of action?

Conventional warfare, meaning large groups of armed soldiers on the ground, fighting one another, seems to be an anachronism. With our advanced warplanes and naval weapons, it is much easier to weaken and defeat an enemy from the air and sea, where the US has clear superiority...this very calculation, near the end of WWII, when the US was faced with an invasion of Japan, where mass casualties on both sides were expected, led to the deployment of nuclear weapons. That capability negates the need to wage a war on two fronts, one where hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would be lost. The American people would expect the nuclear option to be used rather than to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of US soldiers fighting a conventional war.
DrafterX Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 8:20 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
About 10 years ago India was making robot soldiers.. they must have millions by now... Mellow
dkeage Offline
#31 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 8:32 PM EST
Joined: 03-05-2004
Posts: 15,149
DrafterX wrote:
About 10 years ago India was making robot soldiers.. they must have millions by now... Mellow



And the vendors they outsourced the technology to are still waiting to be paid....
Burner02 Offline
#32 Posted: Mon, Jun 19 2017, 9:20 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,876
delta1 wrote:
What scenario would motivate any two or more countries to engage in such hostile activities that endanger or take US lives that we would determine that going to war on two fronts is the best course of action?

Conventional warfare, meaning large groups of armed soldiers on the ground, fighting one another, seems to be an anachronism. With our advanced warplanes and naval weapons, it is much easier to weaken and defeat an enemy from the air and sea, where the US has clear superiority...this very calculation, near the end of WWII, when the US was faced with an invasion of Japan, where mass casualties on both sides were expected, led to the deployment of nuclear weapons. That capability negates the need to wage a war on two fronts, one where hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would be lost. The American people would expect the nuclear option to be used rather than to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of US soldiers fighting a conventional war.



Just curious, have you studied military doctrine or is this just another opinion from the left?
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
ummmm...I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express...


Seriously, I read a lot and am curious to read any articles about the likelihood of the US being drawn into a two front conflict in a conventional war...
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 3:09 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
well, we've pissed off Mexico & Canada this year... Think
gummy jones Offline
#35 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 3:17 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
This thread is fun
delta1 Offline
#36 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:57 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
We can neutralize the Canadians by threatening to send Justin Bieber back...and we can stop Mexico by threatening to keep Salma Hayek...

...not sure if even the Russians and Chinese, as sneaky as they are, have the logistical wherewithal to launch an offensive on American soil...our real time intelligence satellites can spot any apparent military muster and mobilization in those countries before they can leave their bases...does anybody really believe any country can invade our shores without being detected and repelled?

Why would we send hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters to fight on somebody else's soil? We would use missiles and air power before sacrificing American lives, any where in the world...
Hillbillyjosh770 Offline
#37 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 7:06 PM EST
Joined: 02-09-2014
Posts: 2,999
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank, it means infrastructure such as power lines and communication lines are shielded from an EMP.

William R. Forstchen wrote a series (new book to be released next January) about this subject. Though it is a fictional series he's a very informed advocate who's testified to government agencies about this and advocates for preparedness.

1 Second After
1 Year After

^ first two books.


Don't forget Newt G.

1 second after. I really got into that one and read it quick
1 year after. I got about half way through and stopped reading due to the election. I need to finish.

Great book.
jjanecka Offline
#38 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 8:26 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Newt "Kingmaker" Gengrich is a bad dude, no one gets crowned president without his seal of approval.
frankj1 Offline
#39 Posted: Wed, Jun 21 2017, 10:37 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
wasn't Newt the guy who wanted elected folks to have term limits like 50 years ago?
Promise something or other?
Speyside Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Jun 22 2017, 7:53 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
? Clinton and Obama had Gingrich approval? Who would have guessed he's a closet liberal Democrat.
dstieger Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Jun 22 2017, 8:14 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
What did Newt do to pizz off the Donald? Newt's been blowing him in the most public fashion for nearly two years and he can't get near a cushy administration 'job'...and still, Gingrich is relegated to wet daydreaming about Trump on Fox News every 7 or 8 minutes....poor Newt
delta1 Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Jun 22 2017, 12:44 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
He insulted Trump last year: " frankly, he's a pathetic little man"...speaking about Trump's inclinations to blast fellow GOP like Ryan, Rubio, Romney, Cruz...the Donald never forgets and never forgives...
Burner02 Offline
#43 Posted: Thu, Jun 22 2017, 9:32 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,876
delta1 wrote:
The most powerful military ever...but President Eisenhower, one of the greatest American generals, warned of the military-industrial complex taking control of decision making in America...we spend more on our military than the next seven top countries combined...and yet it is not enough...



Al, obviously you are not a fan of our military are you?
Burner02 Offline
#44 Posted: Thu, Jun 22 2017, 9:36 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,876
Al, after checking out #'s 7, 24, 29, 33, and 36, I would recommend to you to change hotels and do a little more reading.

Bro, you have not connected the dots but that is okay.
delta1 Offline
#45 Posted: Fri, Jun 23 2017, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
I'm a huge fan of our military. We have the best equipped and trained combat troops ever. Side-by-side comparisons of our fighting machines show that ours are superior in almost every category.

But the days of conventional warfare, involving massive numbers of troops on the ground, firing bullets, grenades and artillery at one another have passed. If a modern general chooses that option, rather than launching a MOAB on the heads of enemy combatants hunkered down and firing on our troops, thereby sacrificing thousands of our soldiers unnecessarily, he/she would be court-martialled...

...please describe how we would be suckered into invading China and Russia at the same time, sending in waves of our soldiers from the sea and the sky, a la the invasion at Normandy...

...or how both countries could launch an invasion on our shores without us destroying their ships and aircraft en route...
Burner02 Offline
#46 Posted: Fri, Jun 23 2017, 8:41 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,876
delta1 wrote:
I'm a huge fan of our military. We have the best equipped and trained combat troops ever. Side-by-side comparisons of our fighting machines show that ours are superior in almost every category.

But the days of conventional warfare, involving massive numbers of troops on the ground, firing bullets, grenades and artillery at one another have passed. If a modern general chooses that option, rather than launching a MOAB on the heads of enemy combatants hunkered down and firing on our troops, thereby sacrificing thousands of our soldiers unnecessarily, he/she would be court-martialled...

...please describe how we would be suckered into invading China and Russia at the same time, sending in waves of our soldiers from the sea and the sky, a la the invasion at Normandy...

...or how both countries could launch an invasion on our shores without us destroying their ships and aircraft en route...



Al old buddy step back and take a deep breath. I never implied or stated any of your above assertions. What you have done is changed your point of attack or added something in each of your post in this thread.

All I stated in reply to Buckwheat is that the U.S. is not and has not been in a position to fight major wars on two fronts for some years. Never said anything about us invading China, Russia or stating that any other country would invade CONUS with boots on the ground.

There is a butt load of stuff you are not considering when you are making your assertions.

And FYI, don't believe everything you read on the innerweb.
delta1 Offline
#47 Posted: Sat, Jun 24 2017, 2:13 AM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,778
I misread your meaning in your post, #27...It appeared to me that you are advocating that our military isn't now, but should be able to do that...

Burner02 wrote:
You need to do a little research on the two front war thingy capability. We the U.S.A. have not been in that shape or status for several years now.

If you think we can take on China and Russia at the same time, I have some prime beach front property in Alaska for a buck fifty an acre.


...how about the stuff on The Military History Channel...should I ignore that stuff too?

I'm not trying to be argumentative...just pointing out that warfare has changed dramatically...even Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that before and during the Iraq/Afghanistan war...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top