MIL How would the US military do in a fair fight?

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by AlextheDroog, Jan 28, 2005.

  1. AlextheDroog

    AlextheDroog Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any ya

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    24,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the cold war and after the US has enjoyed pretty much military superiority in the world. There hasn't been a potential adversary that could match us since WW2.

    BUT what if there was an adversarial country that could match the US military might for military might... how would we match up?

    Airforce v. Airforce
    Land forces v. Land forces
    Navy v. Navy

    Lets say that country is China or Britain

    and for vets and present soldiers please give a HONEST analysis or opinion..no patriotic stuff. Just a honest analysis...
     
  2. Socrates

    Socrates Guest

    Well, asking who would win between two evenly matched countries is kind of a pointless question, because we can't know until it happens. If they are evenly matched, then there can be no educated answer, because nobody knows.

    If we fought a country like China, then it would not be too much of a fight because countries would start picking sides real quick, and no country from the U.N wants to be against America. We are the dominating country in the world, every other country would come running to us.

    If we was just in a 1on1 fight with China, we would probably get our asses handed to us since they outnumber us like 1000 to 1(probably a bad guess, but close to it).
     
  3. Justin

    Justin Guest

    not really. their modern warfare capabilities are pretty weak. training, tactics, intelligence, old soviet equipment, etc. all suck.

    a war with china would be mostly an air war, and they're in the stone age compared to us in that matter.
     
  4. Socrates

    Socrates Guest

    Ah good, I am glad you said that. I really had no knowledge about whether they could beat us or not, I just didn't want to sound arrogant about saying no country would beat us. Nevermind that!
     
  5. Justin

    Justin Guest

    this is gonna bring on a lot of opposition, but i'm gonna say it anyways. the united states military is the most fearsome fighting force the world has ever seen. period.
     
  6. AlextheDroog

    AlextheDroog Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any ya

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    24,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    it wouldn't bring a lot of opposition because its true. In terms of technology and training there is no other country or military at any time from this point going back in history that could touch us BUT thats why I wanted to speculate how we would do matched against an equal opponent.
    Socrates is correct in that its pointless because we'd have no way of knowing really but i was hoping that maybe someone could think of a plausible scenario that would challange our claim.
     
  7. shankems2000

    shankems2000 If you read everybody's user text and location, yo

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Where you fraid ta be at.
    That's a hard question because there is no match. But I agree with Socrates that we'd get our asses wooped one on one with China. There are just too many of them. Human wave attacks. There would be too many casualties and we would have to pull out. I think that you can only pound a country from the air for so long, and our ground troops would be decimated.
     
  8. GA400

    GA400 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATL
    You've never read The Art of War have you?
     
  9. GA400

    GA400 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATL
    Go back and re-read what you just posted. One on one, evenly matched with China, we'd get our asses whipped because there are too many of them.
     
  10. fiat42lux

    fiat42lux Guest

    Sheer manpower doesn't count for much these days. War isn't about trenches and bayonet fighting until the last enemy is dead.
    China's military is (as vwjustin pointed out) in the stone age compared to American technology. China can send as many peons to war as it wants... if they're only equipped with bolt-action rifles they'll just be lambs to the slaughter.
    There aren't any countries in the world who could withstand prolonged cruise missile attacks, followed by bombing raids (and firestorms, and nukes?). If the object were to occupy the other country, then it might get difficult for the US.

    Secondary consideration: Any of the "P-5" countries have more than enough destructive power to eliminate any (or every) other country in the world. However, I assume we're discounting the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

    I heard Israel has the best air force in the world. True?
     
  11. shankems2000

    shankems2000 If you read everybody's user text and location, yo

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Where you fraid ta be at.
    I never said evenly matched. I said one on one, as in military vs. military.:ugh:
     
  12. SICK GUY

    SICK GUY 69, DUDE!!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2001
    Messages:
    14,943
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On your Mom!
    the germans learned in WW2 that pure numbers go a long way. the russians lost 20 million and kept fighting.
     
  13. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,660
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    Low tech doesn't always equate to inferior. The soviets did some awesome things with their low tech aircraft. We tend to shovel dollars at any problem and force a technological answer where other less expensive and more durable answers would suffice just as well.

    This thread needs some assumptions made before the question can be answered. Would we be fighting on our own soil, the oppositions soil, or in another country one of us has a defense treaty or pact with? To keep it simple, I'll assume we're fighting it out in a 3rd party country. Is the opposition equal in numbers? I'll assume they are. And are they using similar technology to ours? Again, I'll assume they are.

    Using the above assumptions, I think the US will win -- if the war isn't a protracted one. If the war takes more than two years, we'll fragment and fall apart from the inside. Not because our military isn't willing and able to fight, but because our politicians will come under such a barrage from the liberal fringe that they will hamstring the entire military machine. They will mandate ever-tightening rules of engagement, tighten the purse strings on military budgets and expenditures, etc, etc, etc. Think vietnam-era politics. They've done it in every major conflict we've been in except Desert Storm, which IMO was the first and last close-to-perfect war the US has been involved in.

    If we went up against China, say over Taiwan's independence, We could win a protracted war if the politicians were kept out of it, but we would never be able to bring them down quickly. Our resources and technology would win a war of attrition with China, just as we did with the Soviet Union. But the war would need to be started soon. China is quickly adopting capitalistic goals. As their market infrastructure picks up speed, they will soon outpace our ability to outspend them. Then it would just be one fucking bloody slugfest, and IMO their politicians > our politicians when it comes to determination to hang in there and duke it out.
     
  14. AlextheDroog

    AlextheDroog Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any ya

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    24,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes I have what does that have to do with anything?

    apparently our military leaders today haven't read it because we're having to so much trouble with the insurgences. Some of the stuff they're doing us Sun Tzu 101.
     
  15. TNFlyBoy

    TNFlyBoy F =/= ma?? wtf??

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    This depends on so many variables, just a few off the top of my head:

    who's attacking and who's defending?
    what kind of equipment are both sides using? (21st century v. 20th century equipment?)
    what rules are both sides going to fight using?
    what is the type of government on both sides?
    etc, etc.
     
  16. Jester

    Jester OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    106,277
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Chiburbia
    Well, if they were evenly matched, it would be a draw, because the match would be, hmm, EVEN? ;)

    I am assuming you mean even, technologically? Or do you mean resource-wise? Or equipment-wise? We are the only nation in the world that can afford to supply our military with fuel, ammunition, and other supplies.

    I guess I am asking for a clarification on where the evenness would end.
     
  17. GA400

    GA400 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATL
    If you'd read the Art of War then you wouldn't even ask the question. Sun Tzu didn't believe in a fair fight. Theres no such thing in war.
     
  18. GA400

    GA400 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATL
    Your point isn't necessarily true. It depends on who is the aggressor. Taiwan and China are a perfect example. China has a numerically overwhealming force. Taiwan is entrenched using superior technology for defense. China doesn't have the technology to move a force large enough to defeat Taiwan's entrenchments so China leaves Taiwan alone.

    Taiwan has superior technology but wouldn't dream of invading China because China's superior numbers, and the fact that they are entrenched would overwhelm their technology advantage.

    The US would not be able to invade China, period. You could bomb the living hell out of the land until we didn't have any bombs left, but we could never soften the Chinese to the point where we could successfully invade China. In the defensive position, China would win.

    However, China doesn't have the ability to assault the US.
     
  19. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,660
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    Biggest reason China doesn't take Taiwan back is because of the support and influence of countries like the US. They still refer to Taiwan as a part of China, and even the US officially refers to Taiwan as "ROC" (Republic of China).

    Taiwan would be happy to just not have China constantly threatening to invade them. I don't think anybody in Taiwan is even remotely thinking about invading China. They broke away to become an independent country. I don't think they have any other goal with regards to China.

    Fuckin':werd:

    Thank God for geographical boundaries and technological inferiority. :bigthumb:
     
  20. TNFlyBoy

    TNFlyBoy F =/= ma?? wtf??

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    I've heard this too, the reasoning behind the professor that told me this was that our navy pilots trained their air force, and their air force is getting a whole lot of real battle experience. so i would be inclined to believe this. that's not to say that if we had to we couldn't take them out, modern war is all about having a well rounded military. I think the most exciting upcoming military innovation is the UCAV by Boeing, it's unmanned and each remote pilot is capable of controlling 6 different aircraft.
     
  21. GA400

    GA400 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATL
    The China-Taiwan thing was a hypothetical, of course the Taiwanese would never consider invading China even if they could. Or would they? Dunno. its not important.

    Even without the US sitting right behind Taiwan, China couldn't successfully invade Taiwan. They don't have the Navy to support such an invasion.

    Taiwan
     
  22. nerfball

    nerfball New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Messages:
    19,725
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no foe we cannot defeat IF we were committed to the fight. If everyone starts belly-aching like they are now then politically the war would be lost quickly.

    You cannot go strictly by standing army numbers, they US could call up many hundreds of thousands of troops, never enough to match China man for man but training and equipment could make up a big chunk of the difference there.

    Most non-European nations are equipped and have adopted military strategy from the old Soviet Union. We saw how effective that was during the two gulf wars. Russian armor was a fucken joke.

    Someone talked about air power, I think it would be harder to achieve air superiority in a fight with China but it would happen eventually, once we have that the fight would be a lot more balanced regardless of their numbers on the ground. They start to loose radar stations and command and control emplacements, it's all down hill from there.

    Like I said, in a fully committed confrontation, I have little doubt that the US could dominate anyone.
     
  23. bobomb

    bobomb no torque, no care OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    10,223
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't say I've ever heard of that happening. Sounds like BS to me.
     
  24. GA400

    GA400 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATL
    If you think the US can defeat China in China you're a fool. Air Superiority is only one part of the equation.

    Like I said, you can bomb the Chinese all day but they have the numbers and resources to withstand and hold out, especially when entrenched.
     
  25. Jester

    Jester OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    106,277
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Chiburbia
    I usually agree with you, but not here. I think you underestimate the destructive power of the air-deployed non-nuclear weapons that we AREN'T using. Air superiority is not like it was in WWII; today, anything on the ground could be seen from space and destroyed within hours if the US had air superiority. They wouldn't be able to leave bunkers long enough to harvest a single crop; they'd be starving within a year. A billion soldiers on the ground, sans air support, are useless now.
     

Share This Page