• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

US allies bring little to the table

#22
Gonzo said:
You may not like Americans or agree with their foreign policies but, be in no doubt that they are THE most powerful military, capable of massive force projection, the world has ever seen.
Think you missed a word there. The word should be "breifly". Wait until China or (a bit later) India spins up to full power, then the US is going to have to do some serious re-thinking and attitude adjustment.
 
#23
who fcuked the romans? - it was the germans (goths, visigoths, ostrogoths and 3 blokes in mascara), a bunch of little dudes on horses (Huns) and a horde of islamic types (arabs, turks).
 
#24
I would love to see an end to all this appeasment.

Why doesn't the country with the most powerful industrial and military base just tell these people, "if you don't like it, leave, the planet."

Its not fair, its not nice but its so much quicker and economical with the lives of those on our side in the end.
 
#25
AF1771 said:
Gonzo said:
Archimedes said:
Gonzo said:
clownbasher said:
Think he may be flattering the Americans a little in considering them the greatest power in the international system "since Rome"...
You may not like Americans or agree with their foreign policies but, be in no doubt that they are THE most powerful military, capable of massive force projection, the world has ever seen.
*cough* The British Empire? ( We didn't have to do force projection, since we could provide ourselves with basing and all the host nation support we needed... :wink: )
Mate, in air power alone the US military machine outguns the combined British army and navy even at the pinacle of our Empire!
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Firstly inferring that the the Romans were better then than the Americans are now. Then inferring the the Americans are superior in the number of guns they have now compared to the number the British used to have. Who did fcuk the Romans anyway? Sure as hell wasn't the septics.
What are you on about? There's three different people in the quotes above!

- Clownbasher reckoned that it was a far stretch to say the US is more of a world power than the Romans were,
- Me saying that the US is the most powerful the world has vere seen.
- Archimedes saying that the British Empire was the most powerful
- Me saying that no the US is more powerful than the British Empire was too.

Crystal? Or am I missing something?
 
#26
dan_man said:
To be honest NATO hasn't fully adapted to the end of the Cold War, we are fighting not a country anymore, we are fighting an ideology. I think the Germans and French could be doing more of an effort.
Dunno, Iraq was a country, on the ropes admittedly due to sanctions and internal issues, hopefully we wont be invading Iran any time soon.

What happens if in 5 to 10 years from now we end up having to fight a country?
 
#27
NotyouAgain said:
dan_man said:
To be honest NATO hasn't fully adapted to the end of the Cold War, we are fighting not a country anymore, we are fighting an ideology. I think the Germans and French could be doing more of an effort.
Dunno, Iraq was a country, on the ropes admittedly due to sanctions and internal issues, hopefully we wont be invading Iran any time soon.

What happens if in 5 to 10 years from now we end up having to fight a country?

I ment Afghanistan really and we arn't at war with Iraq as a country more the towel heads that don't want it to be a country.
 
#28
Well, it's an interesting article. But whilst being supportive and wanting to help, most American allies probably wont follow the US everywhere (even out of a sense of curiosity) if they feel that a major mistake has, and continues to be, made in its foreign policy. The author doesn't even seem to consider the possibility that the war against terror is being badly fought against inappropriate targets.
 
#29
dan_man said:
NotyouAgain said:
dan_man said:
To be honest NATO hasn't fully adapted to the end of the Cold War, we are fighting not a country anymore, we are fighting an ideology. I think the Germans and French could be doing more of an effort.
Dunno, Iraq was a country, on the ropes admittedly due to sanctions and internal issues, hopefully we wont be invading Iran any time soon.

What happens if in 5 to 10 years from now we end up having to fight a country?

I ment Afghanistan really and we arn't at war with Iraq as a country more the towel heads that don't want it to be a country.
Yes but we invaded Iraq, as a country, just to get into the situation where a few nutters are somewhat narked at our forces, the said narked twerps do want it to be a country, simply one in their image (Ba'athist or theocratic).
 
#30
Gonzo said:
AF1771 said:
Gonzo said:
Archimedes said:
Gonzo said:
clownbasher said:
Think he may be flattering the Americans a little in considering them the greatest power in the international system "since Rome"...
You may not like Americans or agree with their foreign policies but, be in no doubt that they are THE most powerful military, capable of massive force projection, the world has ever seen.
*cough* The British Empire? ( We didn't have to do force projection, since we could provide ourselves with basing and all the host nation support we needed... :wink: )
Mate, in air power alone the US military machine outguns the combined British army and navy even at the pinacle of our Empire!
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Firstly inferring that the the Romans were better then than the Americans are now. Then inferring the the Americans are superior in the number of guns they have now compared to the number the British used to have. Who did fcuk the Romans anyway? Sure as hell wasn't the septics.
What are you on about? There's three different people in the quotes above!

- Clownbasher reckoned that it was a far stretch to say the US is more of a world power than the Romans were,
- Me saying that the US is the most powerful the world has vere seen.
- Archimedes saying that the British Empire was the most powerful
- Me saying that no the US is more powerful than the British Empire was too.

Crystal? Or am I missing something?
What I meant was that the US is currently the world's greatest power. 150 years or go it was the British, 2000 years ago the Romans, before that the Greeks, etc...

There were other dominant powers between the Romans and the Americans (British, Ottomans - any more? My history isn't good enough). I wasn't entering into whether they were at the time more powerful than all the rest put together or anything - don't think that's what the original author meant - just that there have been other periods where a single power was dominant.
 
#31
rabid_hamster said:
who fcuked the romans? - it was the germans (goths, visigoths, ostrogoths and 3 blokes in mascara), a bunch of little dudes on horses (Huns) and a horde of islamic types (arabs, turks).
the romans fcukced the romans.

outsourced their military innit. Relied heavily on coalition forces from friendly countries to take the slack and got soft and fat in the process.

As for any one country being able to take on the world that is a nonsense patently proven so by the germans in the 40's

They are only king of the castle so long as they are seen to be keeping the castle relatively peaceful

a serious war with the US versus all other parties would rapidly see the US economy collapse and the military quickly follow it. Either that or it would quickly go nuclear and in that situation everyone loses.
 
#33
Those involved in the US V British empire debate are missing the point a little bit. The British Empire was primarily trade driven, and the army was a necessary evil pared to the bone to ensure no-one screwed with this. The navy was treated similarly-being given barely enough to see the job done. Since WW2 the US attitude has been to maintain its position as a military superpower. Its hardly comparing like with like-even during the peak of empire, I don't think (off the top of my head) that the British army ever numbered over 200,000 (forget World Wars!). In terms of influence I should imagine the British brand of gunboat diplomacy, though far weaker in terms of magnitude, was every bit as effective as today's US policies.
 
#34
Don't suppose the SPAMs know the bible story of the King that gives a pile of gold to the temple and everyone adores him for it. Then an old granny goes to the temple, she has but two coins and gives one to the temple.
 
#35
I love this frequently reappearing chestnut.
The quick answer is - of course they bring little to the table, and that's just the way the US wants it.
The longer answer...
The complexity and cost of modern military equipment means that very few Western countries are capable of fighting a war. Gone are the days when conscripting everyone between 16 and 60, handing most of 'em rifles and cranking out a few thousand guns made you a power. The US loves to complain that Europeans 'only' spend about 2% of GDP on defence. Most democracies consider 1-2% to be spot on in peacetime - and I don't know what country anyone in the west is currently at war with. Even if European countries screwed their economies by doubling defence expenditure (you don't get much return on defence expenditure unless you invade someplace and rifle its resources) the US knows well that there would be very little actual increase in capability.
Think about it. Belgium can never afford an aircraft carrier, nor bombers. Denmark cannot field armoured divisions. All these little countries - and increasingly, even the bigger ones - could do is get more of the same. More light infantry. Yet more fighters. Twenty or so small countries mean twenty or so small militaries with limited reach and power. Not much use, and certainly no threat. Unless the US can then persuade them to fill little niche roles - Denmark can specialise in NBC decontamination. We'll have Italian nurses. However, who would spend money to build a military that has no function except as part of a US operation? Apart from Tony Blair, that is.
The only way for European nations to field anything like a credible military force in the future is to co-operate. To plan, purchase, equip and train as a single force. Instead of twenty odd attepts at building small armies which adds up to endless infantry, thousands of second rate fighters and flotillas of minesweepers, you get one budget: frigates, carriers, credible armoured forces, transport aircraft and maybe even some proper research and development. That scenario would give the US credible allies and is precisely what the US does not want.
That's the unpalatable truth. Britain - or any other European nation - can choose from three military futures: auxilliary to the US, part of an EU force, or irrelevence.
 
#36
Gonzo said:
You may not like Americans or agree with their foreign policies but, be in no doubt that they are THE most powerful military, capable of massive force projection, the world has ever seen.
*Cough* China *cough*

Chinas Expeditionary Army has 2.4 million troops. 500,000 active at any one time. Worth bearing in mind, while we are gawking at the US hemorrhaging a billion dollar deficit, that Chinas economy will eclipse the US in just 18 years with its current unimpeded growth. The US cannot afford it's armed forces, the treasury is still operating with the largest deficit ever accrued. It's not impressive, it's foolish.
 
#37
milkandcheese, sorry but that is absolute bollix. All the Chinese military does right now is give the US and its WestPac allies lots of targets. Plus the Chinese economy is heading for a hard fall:

http://www.avsam.org/fpr/2006.htm

'Expeditionary Army?'. Ha! it couldn't operate more than 100 miles from China's borders.
 
#39
Listy said:
Gonzo said:
You may not like Americans or agree with their foreign policies but, be in no doubt that they are THE most powerful military, capable of massive force projection, the world has ever seen.
Think you missed a word there. The word should be "breifly". Wait until China or (a bit later) India spins up to full power, then the US is going to have to do some serious re-thinking and attitude adjustment.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, they've both got a very long road ahead of them.
 
#40
milkandcheese, sorry but that is absolute bollix. All the Chinese military does right now is give the US and its WestPac allies lots of targets. Plus the Chinese economy is heading for a hard fall:

www.avsam.org/fpr/2006.htm

'Expeditionary Army?'. Ha! it couldn't operate more than 100 miles from China's borders
An Interesting Forecast . Who is Avsam.org ?
 

Top