Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/24/08 10:30 PM, Asswipe3210 wrote: the U.S has some very good training facilities. Also the money to support the training.

I know first hand the type of training infantry get.

and it's nothing compared to the training the British forces get...

I dunno, man. America has an extremely well-trained army as of now. In the next "real" war, I doubt we'd do too poorly compared to the country that we fight

On the other hand, the next "real" war will be the first that we fight with nuclear capabilities might kill us all

HIGH FIVE!

It is true.

If not where the 3rd best army at least.

At 5/24/08 10:27 PM, Eskimojo wrote: *Osama

not Obama

lolz freudian slip?

I laughed...

At 5/24/08 10:29 PM, Ledgey wrote:

At 5/24/08 09:47 PM, DJ-Keen wrote: Discuss..

I don't see what you're getting at, you're saying that America doesn't have the best military cause they don't fight countries with the same technology? Well, no modern country has the same technology and manpower as the States do, therefore, they do have the best military.

I believe it's impossible to do the math.

But one thing is for sure, I'm sick of the people that claim that the US is the best based on the fact that we win "conflicts"... We've been involved in very few actual "wars".

At 5/24/08 09:54 PM, Jezuz wrote: Does everyone forget that Saddam Hussein had one of the largest and most advanced armies in the world when we invaded the first time?

I don't think he had a the largest and definity not the most advanced...

but he did however, had the 4th largest air defense in the world during the Gulf war, and guess what?

We absolutely decimated it.

hmm, I dont entirely disagree, it depends on the country, and strategy.

England, Germany and France probably wouldnt work out well for them, Italy would die out in a day, Japan only has a meagre "self defense force" Israel has some of the best soldiers in the world and decent armour, but there are simply too few of them. China's army is vast, well supplied, very disciplined and have a huge population base to draw conscripts from they would overwhelm the states on numbers alone. Russia, who knows, maybe back in the soviet regime, but probably not now. Canada has an elite air force, and our soldiers are well trained, equipped and supplied, but training takes too long there simply arent enough of them. furthermore our navy is total ass, a few second hand submarines, a couple decent destroyers and a frigate. plus about 100 inactive warships. No aircraft carriers either. The best strategy to use against us would be to cut off our escape and shower us with bullets, China could be beaten if you dig in and have good air support. Italy you just have to blow on. England should be cut off from the outside world and methodically exterminated, without resources or the ability to import they would not be able to recover losses of materiel, Germany cant be beaten by naval means, their army is the best asset they have, you would be hard pressed to best them on land, some of the best tanks out there now are german, as a result the air force an navy wouldnt much come in handy, as the german air force can hold its own as well, plus what navy they do have is top of the line, dont go picking a fight with them. France has a surrenderng habit, beat them into submission until they surrender, expect the war to last a week, tops. for Israel, , same as canada, trap em and keep killing them till theres none left. Russia is a big place, they will be a challenge even without a considerable military, because if they can mess around with reinforcements and supplies, you will be too spread thin to mount an effective campaign, keep it together, dont make the same mistakes the germans made in WW2.

Happy warmongering, and good luck.

At 5/25/08 12:17 AM, Del-Toro wrote: Happy warmongering, and good luck.

Well, now that I know how to conquer the world, who's with me? Everyone from NG can be a 4-star General. :P

At 5/24/08 09:47 PM, DJ-Keen wrote: I mean, we fought Korea, but that seemed to be just a bunch of Koreans shooting at us from holes in the ground.

Fought Korea? North Korea.

And did we just fight the North Koreans?

No! We owned the North Koreans, but the Chinese intervened after the U.S took Pyongyang along with South Korean troops.

Then the Chinese feared an assault towards their territory, so they invaded Korea in order to help establish a communist government in the peninsula.

The Koreans (I'm a Korean-American) didn't fight from holes in the ground. They freaking massed up and charged at the outnumbered and outgunned US Forces. Chinese troops were also the main reason why the Korean War didn't end in a decisive U.S victory. After there was a very long stalemate at the middle of the peninsula, both sides agreed on a ceasefire.

So get your facts straight.

At 5/24/08 10:30 PM, Epica wrote:

At 5/24/08 10:30 PM, Asswipe3210 wrote: the U.S has some very good training facilities. Also the money to support the training.

I know first hand the type of training infantry get.

and it's nothing compared to the training the British forces get...

lol? probably alot more?

Also no other country in this world has the capability to launch extensive and flexible offensives ANYWHERE on the Earth as much as the U.S.

The U.S is always one step above any other military in this world in military technology, and technology is a very important factor in winning or losing a battle.

The U.S not only has a powerful economy, but the mainland is located far away from any other superpower out there. Even if the U.S fought a war against China or Russia, those two superpowers wouldn't have the power to send a naval strike team across the Pacific ocean without getting pwned by the U.S

There's no doubt that the U.S has the best military.

Also it saddens me how you think that the U.S invaded Korea in general. The U.S fought for the South Korean government which is a democratic and capitalist country against a communist government.

Stupid, stupid people.

The Koreans had tanks, they were way better armed and equipped than the South Korean troops, and the North Koreans combined with the Chinese forces outnumbered the U.S and the South Koreans.

BTW, the U.S spends more than 50% of the World's total military expenditures.

More money, better technology, training, advertisement, weapons, equipment, and a bunch of other stuff.

The British may have an elite SAS team, and a pretty powerful Military, but they aren't even close to matching the U.S' power.

Urgh for fucks sake I just saw another thread about this stupid shit.

At 5/25/08 03:12 AM, Mendou wrote: Urgh for fucks sake I just saw another thread about this stupid shit.

There's got to be at least 5 threads about the same subject.
At the least.

At 5/25/08 03:06 AM, Grubby wrote:

Also it saddens me how you think that the U.S invaded Korea in general.

I was talking about North Korea.

I assumed most of us were bright enough to know we aided south korea in invading north korea.

At 5/24/08 10:15 PM, igott wrote: heres the problem: we got all this technology but we never use it. like the raptors or the big bombs. but No we decide to send in soldiers. by foot. no support or armour.

Are you stupid? Of course you sent support and armor moron. What the hell do you call the artillery? SUPPORT! The humvees and tanks are armor! Jesus christ! And what the fuck kind of bomb do you want to use? A friggin nuke? If you used the nuke you wouldnt be able to get the oil in iraq so easily moron!
Fuck i may be new here but learn to analyze you facts before you talk!

The thing is it doesn't really matter because there will not be a full-out war between any two superpowers, they know better than that. And if for some reason, one superpower decided to attack another, all the others would crush it before it could do shit.

So your saying that since we haven't fought any superpowers since WWII we are weaker? From what I know all of the other powers haven't been slaving away on some epic war for the past 50 years either.

They're all pussies, they went to an Arms race rather than declaring war on Russia.

At 5/25/08 03:30 AM, TheCrook wrote: So your saying that since we haven't fought any superpowers since WWII we are weaker? From what I know all of the other powers haven't been slaving away on some epic war for the past 50 years either.

No, but we're a relatively new country..

They've all been warring for thousands of years...

Japan, WW2, Cold War, Iraq (they had tanks. We took them all out. They also have jets but they suck against us), WW1, etc

No tanks or jets?

At 5/25/08 02:59 PM, Phantox wrote: Japan, WW2, Cold War, Iraq (they had tanks. We took them all out. They also have jets but they suck against us), WW1, etc

No tanks or jets?

I'm talking about post WW2.

Iraq wasn't a superpower at the time of the Gulf War...

Come on, doesn't everyone understand that war doesn't solve anything?!?!?!

Well, yeah it stopped slavery,
and naziism,
and it stopped the spread of communism,
it also gives countries more land/money/power, thus providing happier citizens,
and it keeps people in line...

But other than that it solves nothing!!!

At 5/25/08 04:01 PM, Z-esty wrote: your wrong. we would win against a major country because we have more technology if you want 10 examples pst me and ill give you every one of them

Yeah I don't think so. When you could have just posted them here.

At 5/25/08 04:01 PM, Z-esty wrote: your wrong. we would win against a major country because we have more technology if you want 10 examples pst me and ill give you every one of them

If I wanted to know what technology you think America has that other countries do not I would just turn on Halo and look at the weapons.

At 5/24/08 09:47 PM, DJ-Keen wrote:

. How many times have we fought a nation that provided decent military training to their soldiers, had jets, anti-aircraft weapons, submarines, etc?

Discuss..

during the original gulf war.. Desert shield AND desert storm, The Iraqi military was actually well equipped and trained. They had fighter jets, ANTI - aircraft weapons, and im not entirely sure about submarines.. But in modern days, submarines are basically a futile weapon system.

At 5/25/08 04:04 PM, totaln00b wrote:

But in modern days, submarines are basically a futile weapon system.

How do you work that one out?

Having the capability to launch a Trident Nuclear warhead anyway on the Earth from any location at a momments notice whilst being hidden is a futile weapons system?

Oh, ok then.

Actually, it is true. Look it up Einstein.

What I love is how people are saying Britain is way more stronger then the USA. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Britain, but any person with at least half a brain would know they certainly aren't better military-wise.

Look, Europe all together has 1/10 the strength USA has. (Yes, quote taking from cellardoor6) So how the hell would Britain be stronger?

The amount of ignorance is just so freaking high. Everyone seems to be forgetting Iraq, look how fast we took our their government, primary military, etc. Yet Europe is failing to control some parts of Iraq.

Really guys, start getting facts straight.

At 5/25/08 04:08 PM, Complete wrote: What I love is how people are saying Britain is way more stronger then the USA. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Britain, but any person with at least half a brain would know they certainly aren't better military-wise.

I'm not saying Britain is stronger, I'm saying the British millitary is better trained. Which they are.