‘What really threatens our future?’

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 May 2011, 16:35

Remind me again which major war the US has engaged with without Great Britain, France, Russia etc already having borne the brunt of the fighting?

War is great for getting the country out of a recession isn't it, especially when your homeland isn't actually threatened. Doesn't even matter how much equipment is lost, just means more $ for weapons manufacturers and more jobs for the boys back home.

Even the Japs never threatened the continental USA. The only country which has ever had the potential to is Russia, via nuclear weapons. And that arms race turned out to be a nice moneyspinner for the American defence industry too, so what's not to like?

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 16:39

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 May 2011, 16:52

All that technology and you couldnt even take Mogadishu. So when are you going to make an assault rifle as good as an AK-47?

Which war are you planning on fighting with all those carriers RGR? Russia? China?

Iran? How brave. Or maybe not, the USA doesn't even have the stomach for Libya at the moment. Those carriers sure do look shiny out on the sea though. A nice distraction from the hollowed out wreck of an economy owned mostly by the Chinese that you have.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 16:56

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 May 2011, 17:01

RGR wrote: The homeland doesn't tend to be threatened much because we built a modern military to make sure we can fight wars on other peoples turf.

Nothing to do with having the Pacific on one side of you and the Atlantic on the other side, then

Come off it RGR, it's easy to keep your enemies at arm's length when you have mother nature providing you with the world's biggest moat.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 May 2011, 17:06

RGR wrote:don't spend too much money

We don't have much money to spend anymore, since we lost our empire. Bankrupt empires which try to sustain their military expenditure have a tendency to sink their people into poverty, a process evident in today's USA.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 May 2011, 17:11

RGR wrote:As of late (say, a half century or so) no one would confuse their jumping on a NATO or American or UN bandwagon as non isolationism either. Maybe that is too harsh, a few decades back you guys managed to invade a few small islands populated with friendlies and didn't lose more than a few hundred men and what, half a dozen ships? American deerhunters from Michigan in canoes couldn't have done much better than that, so color me impressed!

This from a country that has a forty minute firefight with one man, shoots an unarmed woman in the leg, in self defence of course, kills an unarmed man and looses a helicopter in the process.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 17:11

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 17:14

[quote="kenneal"]

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 May 2011, 17:21

What's the point in wasting money on a bunch of military hardware which will never be used?

There's no conventional military power which can threaten the UK, and any nuclear power could destroy our country with just a few bombs. And we have enough of our own to guarantee MAD.

We have enough hardware to get involved in other wars of choice, we just tend to choose the winnable ones, not always, but mostly, and contribute to international peacekeeping missions.

Your fleet of carriers are very shiny, but there hasn't been a single occasion in recent history when the UK has needed their protection, and I can't see there ever being one. The world and nature of warfare has changed since 1945.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 May 2011, 17:24

RGR wrote:
kenneal wrote:
RGR wrote:As of late (say, a half century or so) no one would confuse their jumping on a NATO or American or UN bandwagon as non isolationism either. Maybe that is too harsh, a few decades back you guys managed to invade a few small islands populated with friendlies and didn't lose more than a few hundred men and what, half a dozen ships? American deerhunters from Michigan in canoes couldn't have done much better than that, so color me impressed!
This from a country that has a forty minute firefight with one man, shoots an unarmed woman in the leg, in self defence of course, kills an unarmed man and looses a helicopter in the process.
Quite true. In the old days we would have carpet bombed the entire city to get that one man. By that measure, it was a FANTASTIC job and minimized casualties all around. And most importantly of course, how many Americans died in the process? I'll give you a clue....the right number.

I think I should modify my prior meat grinder argument, that is what wars are about, but when you can match that with the precision of a computer guided scalpel, you have the best of both worlds.

If you count up all the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the meat grinder analogy is the appropriate one for getting bin Laden.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 17:25

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 17:34

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 May 2011, 17:46

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 07 May 2011, 17:51

Freud would have a field day with RGR!! So many issues.