Russia entering arms race

[Lemonking]

This entire argument is ****ing stupid.

More weapons = More bad.
End of discussion

agreed, but I think what the US fear is: if they get rid of their nukes and russia does the same....someone most likely will take advantage of that.

 

[kirovman]

Depends how good their logistics are.

 

[Lemonking]

Depends how good their logistics are.

who are you talking to?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Raziaar, obviously.

 

[Lemonking]

Raziaar, obviously.

ok cheerio my british friend.





tea time




/back to sleep

 

[Some_God]

China would own us in land battles.

I hope that was sarcasm. The Chinese Army, as any other army we can possibly face in the future, is no match for the American military (although they can give them a bloody nose, but that wont stop anybody, would it?).

 

[jverne]

I hope that was sarcasm. The Chinese Army, as any other army we can possibly face in the future, is no match for the American military (although they can give them a bloody nose, but that wont stop anybody, would it?).

sry...not true!

their military is huge and they are willing to go guerilla tactics, whic the US army would never have the guts to do...the mostly like to band in groups, as can be seen in the current iraqi war.

 

[DeusExMachina]

sry...not true!

their military is huge and they are willing to go guerilla tactics, whic the US army would never have the guts to do...the mostly like to band in groups, as can be seen in the current iraqi war.

Uhh, there's nothing "brave" about using guerilla tactics .

But, the Chinese have far more people than us. The only up we have with them military wise is technology which they're quickly catching up to. So yes, their army would kick our army's ass.

 

[gick]

The thing is with guerilla tactics, a small determined force will always beat a major superpower with worldwide commitments, if it can avoid outright destruction.

Thats why the British lost in the US war of independence, why the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, why the Americans lost in Vietnam, and why (sadly) the coalition will lose in Iraq.

Anyhoo, US vs China = v v bad for everyone.

 

[Lemonking]

Uhh, there's nothing "brave" about using guerilla tactics .

But, the Chinese have far more people than us. The only up we have with them military wise is technology which they're quickly catching up to. So yes, their army would kick our army's ass.

better tactics my friend.better weapons.
The US Army would "own" anybody in a full scale war.
man power doesnt matter these days.

 

[Mr Stabby]

sry...not true!

their military is huge and they are willing to go guerilla tactics, whic the US army would never have the guts to do...the mostly like to band in groups, as can be seen in the current iraqi war.

China to my knowledge hasn't perfromed any insurgencies lately, or fought any wars for that matter, the US however is fighting a war at the moment, against an insurgency and are therefore proabably know more about insurgency then China

 

[Llama]

Yes but the chinese have more men of fighing age than the USA has bullets...you couldnt beat those numbers, especially if it wasnt an open battlefield

 

[Mr Stabby]

the NATO alliance out numbers China...

 

[Bob_Marley]

The thing is with guerilla tactics, a small determined force will always beat a major superpower with worldwide commitments, if it can avoid outright destruction.

Thats why the British lost in the US war of independence, why the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, why the Americans lost in Vietnam, and why (sadly) the coalition will lose in Iraq.

So could you please explain to people (if your theory is indeed the case) how in the hell British forces defeated gurellias in Kenya and Malaya and similar forces in Borneo a decade later? During this period the British empire was being turned into the commonwealth and there were British military commitments all over the world, handing power over to the newly indipendent nations and prepareing to defend europe from a possible Soviet invasion, amoung other things.

 

[Raziaar]

Yes but the chinese have more men of fighing age than the USA has bullets...you couldnt beat those numbers, especially if it wasnt an open battlefield

Trust me... we have more bullets :E

 

[gick]

So could you please explain to people (if your theory is indeed the case) how in the hell British forces defeated gurellias in Kenya and Malaya and similar forces in Borneo a decade later? During this period the British empire was being turned into the commonwealth and there were British military commitments all over the world, handing power over to the newly indipendent nations and prepareing to defend europe from a possible Soviet invasion, amoung other things.

That little pet theory of mine only really works when your talking about a great big army vs small band of rebels. In Borneo (for example) the British primarily used small numbers of SAS in surgical strikes against the rebels. Also (and this is important) they had the support of the local population. In my earlier examples, the big guy generally didnt.

Also, I said the rebels would win if they could avoid outright destruction (of things like command and control, leaders, supplies etc). In those situations (and many others i'm sure) they couldnt.

 

[kirovman]

Also, the British had guns, whereas the locals tended to have spears.

These days, every Tom Dick and Harry has an AK-47

 

[Top Secret]

Holy shit, some of you need a history lesson.

I'm just going to skim over a few things ->

1. Vietnam was a political war. If it wasn't as politically affiliated, Vietnam wouldn't exist. It'd be a very large char pile.

2. The Korean war was also very political. The US backed out to avoid another world war once China entered through North Korea. Does a Cease fire not suit you? Would you have prefered a war involving 1.2 million Chinese troops? Dumb ****.

3. The US Firebombings in Japan killed more Civilians in one days worth of bombing than both the Atomic bombs combined. I'm talking millions of Japanese here. The firebombings did not target military installations, they targeted one thing: The Japanese. READ A ****ING BOOK.

4. Do not be so foolish as to call the US military a paper tiger. The US has the highest GNP in the world, and the highest military budget in the world. And enough nukes to destroy the world a thousand times over. You really want to call the US a pussy for not sparking doomsday?

5. Religion ****s up war.

6. It would appear a vast majority of you are morons.

 

[Lemonking]

/clap




I like that post.

 

[Llama]

Trust me... we have more bullets :E

If the US has over 200,000,000 (+ other 800,000,000 for civilian rebellions) bullets i'd like to know where they keep them

 

[Raziaar]

If the US has over 200,000,000 (+ other 800,000,000 for civilian rebellions) bullets i'd like to know where they keep them

We're currently producing 1.8 billion 5.56mm, and 7.62mm bullets a year. That's after we more than quadrupled our development from the previous 400 million.

That's significantly more bullets than the chinese have fighting men. More than their entire population

Not that i'm bragging... i'm just providing facts.

Though if the statement of it taking 250,000 bullets per insurgent killed, then we'd need a helluva lot more bullets than we have now, if it takes that many to kill a single chinese soldier. But I doubt it would.

 

[Llama]

**** me

Alright, you win ^^

What do you do with them all?

 

[Raziaar]

**** me

Alright, you win ^^

What do you do with them all?

See if we can stack them end to end to the moon. It's hard to get the first two started.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Holy shit, some of you need a history lesson.

I'm just going to skim over a few things ->

1. Vietnam was a political war. If it wasn't as politically affiliated, Vietnam wouldn't exist. It'd be a very large char pile.

2. The Korean war was also very political. The US backed out to avoid another world war once China entered through North Korea. Does a Cease fire not suit you? Would you have prefered a war involving 1.2 million Chinese troops? Dumb ****.

3. The US Firebombings in Japan killed more Civilians in one days worth of bombing than both the Atomic bombs combined. I'm talking millions of Japanese here. The firebombings did not target military installations, they targeted one thing: The Japanese. READ A ****ING BOOK.

4. Do not be so foolish as to call the US military a paper tiger. The US has the highest GNP in the world, and the highest military budget in the world. And enough nukes to destroy the world a thousand times over. You really want to call the US a pussy for not sparking doomsday?

5. Religion ****s up war.

6. It would appear a vast majority of you are morons.

You've completely missed the point. Completely and utterly missed the point. Though i'm not surprised. It only further enforces my point of view about your countries citizens and lack of hesitancy to invade.

Get the splinter out of your own eye before laying down the personal abuse like your other compatriots.

 

[hari66]

It would appear a vast majority of you are morons.

pretty generic statement,that.

Do not be so foolish as to call the US military a paper tiger. The US has the highest GNP in the world, and the highest military budget in the world. And enough nukes to destroy the world a thousand times over

yeah, i'll inform osama the next time i meet him for a quiet drink. And castro, who lives under your nose.and ayman zawahiri. and all those mullahs who live peacefully in the pak\ afghan border.
get real man. and shut up.

 

[Top Secret]

You've completely missed the point. Completely and utterly missed the point. Though i'm not surprised. It only further enforces my point of view about your countries citizens and lack of hesitancy to invade.

Get the splinter out of your own eye before laying down the personal abuse like your other compatriots.

I correct mis-statements and suddenly I missed some ominous "point"? I'm hardly surprised myself. Good job with the blind hatred there dumb ass. :thumbs: What are you, 8? Anything else to say?

pretty generic statement,that.

I felt instead of listing 73.45% of the posters in this thread individually, I'd just save myself some time.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I correct mis-statements and suddenly I missed some ominous "point"? I'm hardly surprised myself. Good job with the blind hatred there dumb ass. :thumbs: What are you, 8? Anything else to say?

A walking, talking stereotype! Not much more to say because i've made my point and not surprisingly you didn't comprehend it. :thumbs:

Correcting mis-staments?

I say America failed in Vietnam, you say it was a political war implying victory or defeat wasn't the purpose? Therefore making my statement of failure irrelevant? That's a bizarre way to look at it, though it's not the first time i've heard it from people trying to redefine the word failure to mean something else. Is it of any concern to you that a political statement was made through the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? It is to me. That's what disgusts me and obviously disgusted millions of Americans at the time who were totally against the war.

Do you see the point i'm trying to make? Entering a military conflict with a political mindset will often result in a failure militarily. Especially against a foe that is fighting for survival or an ideal that is built on strong cultural foundations. Which brings me back the question, why invade in the first place? If it happens all over again with Iran i'll just sit back shaking my head in a "told you so" fashion.

 

[Top Secret]

A walking, talking stereotype! Not much more to say because i've made my point and not surprisingly you didn't comprehend it. :thumbs:

Nice try. However, I'm not the one stereotyping. Ohh, he used a big word! Comprehend! Wow! And what is that that I did not comprehend? You stated that the sky was blue. Must I nod in agreement? Perhaps you shouldn't state things that are beyond obvious.

I say America failed in Vietnam, you say it was a political war implying victory or defeat wasn't the purpose? Therefore making my statement of failure irrelevant? That's a bizarre way to look at it, though it's not the first time i've heard it from people trying to redefine the word failure to mean something else.

Nice job trying to put words into my mouth there. :thumbs: How you extracted that I was implying that 'winning' or 'losing' wasn't the purpose of the Vietnam war is beyond me. Nor do I recall myself defending the failure of the Vietnam war. Vietnam failed for many reasons. Political ones included.

Is it of any concern to you that a political statement was made through the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? It is to me. That's what disgusts me and obviously disgusted millions of Americans at the time who were totally against the war.

And here you are trying to play Mr. High and Mighty. Very classical. However, once again I don't recall defending the Vietnam war. Nor do I condemn the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. (It was actually over a million, if you knew anything about history.) But you obviously think I do advocate the war. And do you know why you think that? Because you dislike me. You disklike me because I'm American, and I'm proud of it. My response? **** you.

Do you see the point i'm trying to make? Entering a military conflict with a political mindset will often result in a failure militarily. Especially against a foe that is fighting for survival or an ideal that is built on strong cultural foundations. Which brings me back the question, why invade in the first place? If it happens all over again with Iran i'll just sit back shaking my head in a "told you so" fashion.

And here I am forced say several things:

1. OBVIOUSLY anyone fighting a political war isn't going to fight as hard as a person fighting for survival. That's basic instincts 101. Please, don't state the obvious as if in a manner to which I did not know of it. You try to appear smart, yet I can tell you're a moron. :thumbs:

2. Why are you asking "me" why "I" invaded? Am I registered for the Republican party? No... did I vote for President Bush the first time? No... Did I vote for President Bush the second time? No... do I advocate or support the war in Iraq? No... Am I for a war with Iran? No...

3. It is not enough to merely say "I told you so." Who would you be telling? Us Americans? So what? "I told you so." What does that do? Will you sit there with glee and chuckle with happiness when your thougths that all Americans are idiots is confirmed? Would you donate to the people of Iran who will be homeless or forced into starvation from the ensuing war? What about Iraq? What have you done to help those people? You criticize with no input.

4. And now you are presented with the failure of Democracy. What is the failure of Democracy? The minority. The minority will always be ****ed in democracy. Whether it's 4% of the population or 49.5%. Now, whether I was in the minority, or majority of people who were once for the Iraq war apparently doesn't matter, as because I am American, I suck at life either way, right?


"Don't bother replying. I'm sure you won't "comprehend" my post, nor will you be able to conjur a suitable reply." <-- that's what you sound like, asshole. Don't belittle me bitch.