The United States...

[Dark Nexus]

[quote="McDoofus";p="355878"]You make it sound like the US military was just sitting around one day, and all of a sudden all these technological advances just dropped in their lap. Not correct.[/quote]

How did I make it sound like that? I said they've got superior technology. No mention of how long they've had it, where it came from, nothing. My post was about their TRAINING, not their technology. .So how did I give that impression? Or are you just reading things that I never wrote?

[quote="McDoofus";p="355878"]

I'm sorry, but for all it's equipment, the US army as a whole isn't well trained at all.

How could you say this? What makes you believe that that statement is even remotely accurate? From what sources are you recieving your information?[/quote]

Well, there was the snipers I mentioned, which happened in Afghanistan. Mind you, that's only a small part of it. There's also how the US never (or at least rarely - I don't claim to know results of every one) won international wargames, which are a rather good indication of training as the individual sides are put on equal footing regarding numbers and technology. Or how the US, in pretty much any multinational effort, traditionally takes more losses and more time to achieve similar objectives as their allies, something I consider to be a matter of training. To use an example that was in the news recently (but didn't happen recently), the American troops who landed on D-Day lost more troops (as a total percentage of those landing) than the Canadians. Quite possibly the British as well, I don't know. As I recall, they also did the job quicker than the Americans, with fewer troops per beach. I'm sure statistics from Afghanistan and Iraq would probably show similar differences in efficiency. I haven't even TOUCHED on friendly-fire incidents in both of those countries.

I'm not saying the US military can't get the job done. They most certainly can. They're also the only army that's both big enough and well equiped enough to take on as many objectives as they do. Just saying they're far from the best trained overall.

[Herr Doktor!]

[quote="McDoofus";p="355878"]You make it sound like the US military was just sitting around one day, and all of a sudden all these technological advances just dropped in their lap. Not correct.[/quote]

Yah, and I'm sure the ARMY developed that.

[Dark Nexus]

[quote="Herr Doktor!";p="355899"][quote="McDoofus";p="355878"]You make it sound like the US military was just sitting around one day, and all of a sudden all these technological advances just dropped in their lap. Not correct.[/quote]

Yah, and I'm sure the ARMY developed that.[/quote]

To be fair, they probably PAID for it to be developed...

[StruckingFuggle]

From what sources are you recieving your information?

Same to you.

[SothThe69th]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="355911"]

From what sources are you recieving your information?

Same to you.[/quote]

OMG BACK TO YOU TIMES TWO.

No, seriously, let's see some sources, and then let's see him flop around like a fish out of water.

[Azurain]

BBQ, an inability to think in hypotheticals is a sign of a weak intellect; an unwillingness to argue in hypotheticals is a sign of a weak position. Seriously. Answer the question or admit that your position is flawed.

If another country were to become the most powerful nation in the world, would that then make that nation the greatest nation of all time?

Put up or shut up, so to speak.

-- Chris

[Salvation122]

[quote="McDoofus";p="355878"]How could you say this? What makes you believe that that statement is even remotely accurate?[/quote]
His case is overstated, but the American military is certainly not the best trained in the world. That honor would most likely go to the Israelis, followed by the RoK. We're about equal with Germany, Britain, and Russia, and most of Europe isn't far behind.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="Dark Nexus";p="355893"]Or how the US, in pretty much any multinational effort, traditionally takes more losses and more time to achieve similar objectives as their allies, something I consider to be a matter of training.[/quote]
I understand your point, but you're not putting things in context. Were the objectives more or less difficult to achieve? Were there surprises in how easy or difficult a given objective was to take? Were there lucky breaks, such as hitting an enemy ammunition depot that was previously unknown, or unlucky breaks, such as a good commander getting hit while behind cover by a ricochet shot?

[BillyBlaze]

This has to be fake.
That Department Of Defence link is pretty damned convincing.

[Martin Blank]

No, it's quite real. The DoD tested nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons on its soldiers and occasionally on civilians for a number of years during the early to middle Cold War period. Troops would be deployed near areas, and told to sit still for a while. They weren't told that chemical and biological munitions were being deployed in the area. When it came to nuclear weapons, they would be taken to a location a particular distance from a warhead located on a scaffold or in a truck, or occasionally dropped from a plane, given dark glasses, and told not to look in the direction of the blast. Effects were then measured -- what kind of effects did they come under, how long did the chemical or biological agent or nuclear material remain in the body, and other things.

Civilians were occasionally used in tests where a low-level biological agent would be injected when people -- usually minorities -- went in for vaccinations. Instead of a smallpox vaccination, for example, they might get a weakened smallpox variant. Instead of TB preventive treatments, they might be injected with TB itself. They were then monitored to test how far and fast it would spread.

Not the best showing of US compassion.

[Imperator Severn]

I think there is a difference between terrorist attacks on innocent, unarmed civilians and soldier vs soldier on the battle field. Nice try, though.

Fair enough, then what about the Pentagon attack? Or the embassy bombings in Africa and Lebanon?

The rest of your post is humorous. Innaccurate and completeley ignorable, but humorous nonetheless.

Is that code for "I can't argue with historical fact?"

[Makh]

[quote="Imperator Severn";p="355860"]It is impossible to compare armies of different eras in such a way.[/quote]

Imperator is right. BBB zero imagine himself with a machine gun in front of Mongols or Romans. Romans army was an example and a model for many medieval army in Europe a long time after Rome's fall. In Russia, Mongols were considered like hell riders.

[peter-griffin]

To use an example that was in the news recently (but didn't happen recently), the American troops who landed on D-Day lost more troops (as a total percentage of those landing) than the Canadians. Quite possibly the British as well, I don't know. As I recall, they also did the job quicker than the Americans, with fewer troops per beach. I'm sure statistics from Afghanistan and Iraq would probably show similar differences in efficiency. I haven't even TOUCHED on friendly-fire incidents in both of those countries.

I'm not even going to bother with this; if you're blatantly going to disregard Omaha beach's German garrison (which was substantially larger than those of Gold or Sword) then it's not worth arguing with you.







About all this fucking arguement of the better army; what makes an army? Its ability to fight. The Roman army did NOT have the capability to fight that the US has today; if you can't realize that, you need to do some study on the history of human warfare. Just because the Roman army was great 2,000 years ago doesn't make it comparable to a modernized army now, simply because of it's novelty of being what it was.

[bort]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="355714"]Someone forgetting the War of 1812, when the White House and Capitol were burned? I seem to remember there being an awful lot of British soldiers on the mainland at that time. [/quote]

that was not a loss, as much as a draw. neither country gained anything from the war, and both countries decided it wasn't worth continuing.

[quote="Martin Blank";p="355714"]
And China's armed forces number about 1.6 million men, most of whom are in their army. The navy (known as the People's Liberation Army Navy, oddly enough) is quite weak and suitable only for coastal defense. They have some blue-water ships, but those are mostly used for larger-area defensive operations. I laugh when people talk about China invading Taiwan, as they have only enough troop transports to move a few thousand soldiers at a time, and at one time they actually discussed commandeering private boats and putting 3-10 soldiers on each and crossing the Straits to invade. The Chinese air force may be something to reckon with -- they have numbers, reasonably good pilots, and their technology isn't too far back -- but that's about it. The major weakness for them could be the strict, Soviet-style central control system that they used to use; I don't imagine they've done away with that.[/quote]

china might have numbers, but in conventional warfare, the us is supreme. the technological gap between the us and china's technology(a lot of which is ex-soviet stuff), is huge. if there was a war, china would get raped. id say the next strongest military after the us would be israel's.

as for the original question in this thread... the us is still young, and has only been on the world stage for a century. it still doesnt measure up such historial greats as the british empire of the 18th and 19th centuries, the roman empire from about 100BC(when it was still a republic, but what the hey. ) to 350AD.

ofcourse, the greatness of a nation is relative to what we define greatness as. i think a nation's greatness is measured by several things. one is the nation's power(political, economical, military). another is the country's influence(same as power). the third factor is the quality of life of the nation's citizens(relative to others). the last factor is that nation's contributions to the fields of science and philosophy, as well as art. the british and roman empires, at their hight, rank higher than the us does, imo. this is natural, because, as i said, the us has only been a world power for a century. in a hundred years or so, it may indeed become the greatest nation ever, if it still exists.

[Imperator Severn]

china might have numbers, but in conventional warfare, the us is supreme. the technological gap between the us and china's technology(a lot of which is ex-soviet stuff), is huge. if there was a war, china would get raped. id say the next strongest military after the us would be israel's.

China has the bomb. In a two-way nuclear war, everyone gets raped.

the roman empire from about 100BC(when it was still a republic, but what the hey. )

Rome in 100 BC was a republic in the sense that modern-day Colombia is a Republic. Unless I am terribly confused, it was around this time that Marius Sulla was head honcho.

that was not a loss, as much as a draw. neither country gained anything from the war, and both countries decided it wasn't worth continuing.

Martin was pointing out that the US had certainly been invaded.