Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by advice_guru)
    The US is a very mighty military force indeed, but that doesn't mean they are not vulnerable. Any nuclear armed nation could inflict serious damage to the US before that said country is wiped off the map.
    I'm not saying it could't but I think people are far too critical of the US armed forces in conventional wars due to Afghanistan and Vietnam

    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Are you serious Aj? :curious:


    That's like saying "Look at how that massive and skilled pro wrestler KO'd that thin, wiry and puny little guy."
    Regardless of the opponent involved the US showed it can fight a fully integrated air land and sea campaign, hardly an easy thing to do. Iraq is a good example of the capabilities the US has and that it can use them well. As well as this just being able to fight a war and keep an army supplied as far away from its home as the US did shows an incredibly advanced logistical ability that most countries can only dream of.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I'm not saying it could't but I think people are far too critical of the US armed forces in conventional wars due to Afghanistan and Vietnam

    Regardless of the opponent involved the US showed it can fight a fully integrated air land and sea campaign, hardly an easy thing to do. Iraq is a good example of the capabilities the US has and that it can use them well. As well as this just being able to fight a war and keep an army supplied as far away from its home as the US did shows an incredibly advanced logistical ability that most countries can only dream of.
    Fat lot of good a fully integrated air land campaign is when your fighting it in the wrong place. Whats next? Americans build new super sub capable of engaging all China and Russias forces at once, Korean scuba diver knocks on door.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Are you serious Aj? :curious:


    That's like saying "Look at how that massive and skilled pro wrestler KO'd that thin, wiry and puny little guy."
    But if people are going to continue to use the example of how America's military was embarrassed in Iraq, they should at least get their facts straight and know that the US military was extremely successful in overthrowing the Saddam regime but as Aj said the aftermath was a complete mess. Even so, the speed and efficiency the US military took down the regime.

    Getting back to the topic, there's probably countless pages on this already but I highly doubt North Korea will start a war with the US. I mean, a nation reliant upon foreign aid and who can barely afford to feed its citizens starting a war with the greatest military in the world without any allies to back it up is highly unlikely. It's all just sabre rattling to try and get nations to see them as a serious player but I could be wrong, only time will tell.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    But if people are going to continue to use the example of how America's military was embarrassed in Iraq, they should at least get their facts straight and know that the US military was extremely successful in overthrowing the Saddam regime but as Aj said the aftermath was a complete mess. Even so, the speed and efficiency the US military took down the regime.

    Getting back to the topic, there's probably countless pages on this already but I highly doubt North Korea will start a war with the US. I mean, a nation reliant upon foreign aid and who can barely afford to feed its citizens starting a war with the greatest military in the world without any allies to back it up is highly unlikely. It's all just sabre rattling to try and get nations to see them as a serious player but I could be wrong, only time will tell.
    That's not exactly a grand achievement - it's like a highly skilled Goliath being the USA and puny and a David being Iraq, this time, David losing because he's unskilled and whatnot. I would have been more surprised had the USA not been able to overthrow the Saddam regime. It's not exactly surprising or a particularly great achievement when the greatest military on the planet wins a petty war now, is it?

    This is why it's pitiful that some bearded tribesmen with Ak47s still cause a great deal of trouble for the greatest military on Earth (which has now resorted to the use of drones). But then again, Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires", so the United States stood no chance in the first place
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I'm not saying it could't but I think people are far too critical of the US armed forces in conventional wars due to Afghanistan and Vietnam
    It's not being critical, it's being ignorant; a far worse error. People simply don't understand the difference between the two concepts. Hence why we get people spouting nonsensical lines such as in the post following yours "Whats next? Americans build new super sub capable of engaging all China and Russias forces at once, Korean scuba diver knocks on door".
    So many holes it's not even worth starting to pick it apart.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    That's not exactly a grand achievement - it's like a highly skilled Goliath being the USA and puny and a David being Iraq, this time, David losing because he's unskilled and whatnot. I would have been more surprised had the USA not been able to overthrow the Saddam regime. It's not exactly surprising or a particularly great achievement when the greatest military on the planet wins a petty war now, is it?

    This is why it's pitiful that some bearded tribesmen with Ak47s still cause a great deal of trouble for the greatest military on Earth (which has now resorted to the use of drones). But then again, Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires", so the United States stood no chance in the first place
    I never said it was a particularly grand achievement but surely it proves as an example of how mighty their military is despite the shambles that occurred afterwards. I wasn't surprised by it, well tbh I was 8 but having read up on it, I didn't find it surprising.

    You can see why they want to use drones though (not that I agree with it) as it eliminates the risk of their own soldiers getting killed in combat and they're fairly accurate and you could make a case for it but if it runs the risk of harming civilians then it's not worth it. Haha very true
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It's not being critical, it's being ignorant; a far worse error. People simply don't understand the difference between the two concepts. Hence why we get people spouting nonsensical lines such as in the post following yours "Whats next? Americans build new super sub capable of engaging all China and Russias forces at once, Korean scuba diver knocks on door".
    So many holes it's not even worth starting to pick it apart.
    It makes a point which is that no matter how big your army is you can be outsmarted. A cowboy shootout perhaps has less room for this but in conflicts with complex obstacles such as jungle that require adaptation, cunning and flexible innovative thinking the Americans don't fare so well. Any war where the enemy has less but uses what they have and the terrain better is "asymmetric" and doesn't count where as blokes standing in the desert where the Americans can see them is the sort of proper war by which we should judge the American forces? American minds are like American cars, fine so long as there isnt any corners.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    It makes a point which is that no matter how big your army is you can be outsmarted. A cowboy shootout perhaps has less room for this but in conflicts with complex obstacles such as jungle that require adaptation, cunning and flexible innovative thinking the Americans don't fare so well. Any war where the enemy has less but uses what they have and the terrain better is "asymmetric" and doesn't count where as blokes standing in the desert where the Americans can see them is the sort of proper war by which we should judge the American forces?
    There are some key differences in this situation.
    1 - the US has fought in Korea before.
    2 - the US has been based in Korea for 60 years and knows the terrain just as well as the locals; terrain which isn't all that extreme [no desert, no rainforests].
    3 - the open sea is not an unusual place of battle for a country who - for nearly 100years - has succesfully operated a blue water Navy in combat operations globally.


    Your specific example of the submarine being scuppered "by a scuba diver" is childish. And that's being charitable.


    The US' issues have mostly come from fighting non-conventional wars. Not fighting against Armies with massive manpower reserves and huge logistical tails. When they do come up against such Armies, they annihilate them. When they do come up against such Air Forces, they destroy them. The old Roman idea of decimation is small potatoes, the Americans go for total destruction. And achieve it.
    They fall down when the fighting devolves to guerilla style very small scale engagements, something NK's doctrines and set up are not geared towards.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    There are some key differences in this situation.
    1 - the US has fought in Korea before.
    2 - the US has been based in Korea for 60 years and knows the terrain just as well as the locals; terrain which isn't all that extreme [no desert, no rainforests].
    3 - the open sea is not an unusual place of battle for a country who - for nearly 100years - has succesfully operated a blue water Navy in combat operations globally.


    Your specific example of the submarine being scuppered "by a scuba diver" is childish. And that's being charitable.


    The US' issues have mostly come from fighting non-conventional wars. Not fighting against Armies with massive manpower reserves and huge logistical tails. When they do come up against such Armies, they annihilate them. When they do come up against such Air Forces, they destroy them. The old Roman idea of decimation is small potatoes, the Americans go for total destruction. And achieve it.
    They fall down when the fighting devolves to guerilla style very small scale engagements, something NK's doctrines and set up are not geared towards.
    Complex obstacles doesnt necessarily mean terrain. The Americans aren't so good at using the complexity of an overall situation be it terrain or other complexities that require adaptive thinking.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Complex obstacles doesnt necessarily mean terrain. The Americans aren't so good at using the complexity of an overall situation be it terrain or other complexities that require adaptive thinking.
    False. During an occupation they sometimes lack nuance.

    During an invasion and attack they get the job done at an unbelievable rate of knots.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    False. During an occupation they sometimes lack nuance.

    During an invasion and attack they get the job done at an unbelievable rate of knots.
    Your just playing with words. The Taliban prefer to let the Americans advance into their country so that they can use their limited weaponry to best effect but then it's not a war anymore so doesnt count? They invade effectively because trying to stop them at that point would be the most idiotic tactic ever. Your basically saying that America is great at wars against people who stand there while the Americans run them over with tanks. Anyone who gets out of the way is an asymmetric gurilla in an occupation and not a war.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Your just playing with words. The Taliban prefer to let the Americans advance into their country so that they can use their limited weaponry to best effect but then it's not a war anymore so doesnt count? They invade effectively because trying to stop them at that point would be the most idiotic tactic ever. Your basically saying that America is great at wars against people who stand there while the Americans run them over with tanks. Anyone who gets out of the way is an asymmetric gurilla in an occupation and not a war.
    No. I'm trying to help you understand that there are 2 distinct phases of fighting and that you're making a lack of flexibility with one of them mean an ineptitude at the other. That's simply not the case.

    America is superb - and superbly equipped - for wars against countries. It is not so well trained and mentally prepared for fighting against, essentially, gangs.

    If (and it is a big 'if') Korea goes hot then it will be a war against a country with a formed Army, not small bands of gangs roving the wild. In that particular style of engagement they are unbeaten.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No. I'm trying to help you understand that there are 2 distinct phases of fighting and that you're making a lack of flexibility with one of them mean an ineptitude at the other. That's simply not the case.

    America is superb - and superbly equipped - for wars against countries. It is not so well trained and mentally prepared for fighting against, essentially, gangs.

    If (and it is a big 'if') Korea goes hot then it will be a war against a country with a formed Army, not small bands of gangs roving the wild. In that particular style of engagement they are unbeaten.
    Vietnam War? WW1?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel)
    Vietnam War? WW1?
    In Vietnam they won just about every battle they engaged in. That war was lost at a political level and not due to any significant flaw on the ground.
    The only major criticism about them in WW1 is only deciding to turn up 3/4 of the way through... (they've got new watches since, however).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It seems to have gone very quiet on the North Korean front. Have they said much in the past few days, any reaction to Kerrys address yesterday?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    A Japanese official has made quite a funny blunder (in a dark humour sort of way) by accidently sending out an alert saying North Korea has launched a missile instead of sending out an alert to announce that Kobe has been struck by magnitude 6.3 earthquake.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1077637/no...-japan-blunder

    Suppose it isn't totally relevant to what North Korea is doing, but still...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AgentSushi)
    It seems to have gone very quiet on the North Korean front. Have they said much in the past few days, any reaction to Kerrys address yesterday?
    There was only a scare in Japan when an official accidentally announced the launch of a North Korean missile instead of sending an alert about a strong earthquake.

    Apart from that, John Kerry's only spoken to the Chinese President urging China to help end the North Korean crisis.

    No response from North Korea yet.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Razzamoly)
    A Japanese official has made quite a funny blunder (in a dark humour sort of way) by accidently sending out an alert saying North Korea has launched a missile instead of sending out an alert to announce that Kobe has been struck by magnitude 6.3 earthquake.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1077637/no...-japan-blunder
    It only takes one silly mistake....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    It only takes one silly mistake....
    North Korean officials have apologised for launching their Musodong missile at downtown Tokyo... apparently they misheard Mr Kim say

    "It is time for lunch"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I find it questionable (rude?) that a Secretary of State is meeting the President of China - surely, the POTUS should be meeting the Chinese President? :confused:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.