Is the American military force the greatest military in human

In relative or absolute terms?

>>3162641
both

>>3162641
Both are true.

>greatest military force in human history
>cant beat some gook peasants with rusty farm tools

>>3162648
>peasants that were being backed by a superpower

File: 13750360875_347de7518f_b.jpg (238KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1024x905px

>>3162648
We could beat them if we really wanted to, there would just be a lot of human rights violations.

>>3162668
>having to resort to committing massive human rights violations to beat gook farmers with rusty farm tools

>>3162640
It has the biggest budget, largest size, and has realitively globalized its control or in otherwords spread it's influence militarily. So yes it is.

But to be fair the US's dominance as a world superpower and ability to cooperate with so many nations across the globe is the only real reason why it is seen as the best.

In more recent years the military has shrunk and its leading hierarchy of command is comparatively weak to what it was 20-30 years ago.

>>3162676
>In more recent years the military has shrunk and its leading hierarchy of command is comparatively weak to what it was 20-30 years ago.

Good.

>>3162657
A superpower that couldn't beat a bunch of sandniggers with peashooters

File: 05d.jpg (30KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x451px

>>3162675
>war, with human rights in tact

>>3162680
On the other hand, if we are talking about an invasion of the US, Unlike the rest of the world the US has around 100 million armed civilian ready to blast away anyone who threatens their freedom.

Knowing this, the eternal letters has undermines the infrastructure of the US and started destroying it from within. In the freedoms of the US will be dismantled and the invasion of the old Americano will be destroyed.

#staywoke

In our time, yes. In comparison to rome at its height no, since Rome had the balls to decimate areas and then call it peace

File: 1438641865917.jpg (508KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1024x682px

>>3162640
Obviously.

>>3162685
Sandniggers with peashooters who were backed by a superpower
Really makes you think

>>3162640
In potential power most definitely, but remember that they've managed to fuck up almost every single conflict they've entered in the past half-century, and all of these have been against what should have been vastly inferior opponents. Its completely up in the air how they would perform against a power that more closely rivals theirs (also potentially).

>>3162745
>a superpower couldn't beat a primitive nation because it was backed by another superpower
>the superpower who backed the primitive nation can't beat some other primitive nation because it's backed by the other superpower

This was literally the cold war.

File: IMG_9682.png (13KB, 1226x117px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1226x117px

>>3162640
Lol not by a long shot

File: quote-if-we-come-to-a-minefield-our-infantry-attacks-exactly-as-it-were-not-there-georgy-zhukov-280473[1].jpg (50KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x400px

>>3162640
muh 30 million casualties

File: th.jpg (4KB, 110x110px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 110x110px

Genghis Khan

Relative: by a very long mile, the USA has made the entire world its bitch and the best opponent they collapsed in 1991.
Absolute: probably, but that is far more subjective. You could argue for rome, or one of the early Persian dynasties, or Chinese, or the mongols, maybe the timurids, or the British empire

>>3162771
>leafs are still talking about 1812

File: Burgershits..jpg (899KB, 1237x3696px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 1237x3696px

Fuck off A*erican.

>>3162668
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express

File: download.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>3162768
>The Cold War was political Pokemon

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S military isn't Invincible. There is one fatal weakpoint about it that could be exploited. It's how goddamn EXPENSIVE the U.S military is to maintain. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars on their own have cost America more than Five Trillion Dollars. Destroy America's economy, and you destroy it's military.

File: total federal spending 2015 US.png (90KB, 1000x827px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1000x827px

>>3163008
America's economy is the worlds economy.

>>3162718
This, America is too nice to commit genocides or mass exterminations compared to other military superpowers in history.

File: 1479677469762.png (1MB, 1884x2104px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1884x2104px

>>3163017

>>3163017
That doesn't refute my point. It simply means America's collapse would effect the rest of world.

>>3162771
War of 1812 was fought almost entirely by state militias, not regular army.

File: Burger BTFO..png (91KB, 1156x655px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1156x655px

>>3163031
Now here is the PPP list. The list that TRULY matters.

>>3163031
>>3163031
Wow that is amazing, I don't understand why the US are 20 559 222 096 081 dollars in debt then!?
It's almost like they believe owning the new iPhone™ while having huge credit card debt means being "rich".

>>3163074
The EU is gonna be a superpower to behold once it federalizes and establishes it's own army.

>>3163081

>debt mattering

File: (╹ᴗ╹ ).jpg (30KB, 405x358px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 405x358px

>>3163081
>retards still think national debt=personal debt but scaled up
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

>>3162990
This reaks of revisionist butt hurt

>>3162668
bait

File: -1x-1.png (71KB, 1200x668px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1200x668px

>>3163096
Never said that. But it nicely reflects the American mentality of thinking to be no. 1 at everything when they are pretty much at nothing.
Plus 3/4 Americans are in fact in debt. Stop living in denial.

>>3163051
On the Canadian side it was. Pretty pathetic the professional army of the United States was defeated 3 times by shitty Canadian militia and Indians.

>>3163200

Weren't the Canadians just brits back then?

>>3163217
The British were the ones who actually attacked America on American soil. Canadians just defended Canada from invasion

>>3163220

But they weren't Canadians in the sense that they are now. There was no nation of Canada at the time.

>>3163081
This is uncannily retarded

>>3163144
>Mentions US national debt
>Follows with practice of buying iPhones when in debt
>But anon that has nothing to do with anything
>Never said it did
You're a retard, thru n thru

>>3163200
The American forces were militia, as it was assumed they would be adequate. The invasion was led by the Kentucky Militia, hence the famous quote from Henry Clay;
>"the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at our feet."

Of the 528,000 Americans involved in the War 458,000 (87%) were militiamen, The 57,000 (10%) regulars only becoming involved during the Niagara Campaign w/ their victory at the Battle of Chippawa and staying primarily on the "western front" fighting the arguably more important Creek and Tecumseh Wars. That's why defense of DC was left in the hands of state militia.

>>3163018
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Just because we don't use our stick, it doesn't mean it's smaller

The US soldier is the best trained, equipped, supported, and led soldier in history.

Despite this, the US military still manages to finds it impossible to strategically defeat sandle wearing brown people across the globe.

Relatively speaking the Roman Imperial army, in the modern sense strategically and operationally speaking it would have to be the German wehrmacht. Specifically the waffen ss..it was the most diverse Army ever assembled since Rome...and their victories won in it's prime are truly epic.

>>3163383
Insurgency mixed with guerrilla tactics is nearly impossible for an outside force to stomp out no matter what you hit it with

>>3162648
That war was lost at home purposely, the same fuckin c.i.a. that committed crimes against humanity covertly while the regular standing forces we're walking on eggshells; were the same saddistic bastards who were conducting mind control experiments en masse on a whole generation of dopey adulescents using aleister Crowley's teachings through the music they covertly manufactured all the while promoting recreational drug use through their agents like Timothy Lear...this bullshit mind control experiment started with the Beatles mind you, and how they slowly went from singing innocent ballads to introducing satanic eastern mysticism and whimsically spouting anti Christ sentiment.

>>3163031
>average yearly income

I wonder what the median would be, without the plutocrats pumping up the mean..

V I E T N A M
I
E
T
N
A
M

File: image.jpg (47KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 660x371px

>>3162640
>Is the American military force the greatest military in human history?
no
>who is?
pic related

File: 88e2f9766173cb2781dfc3680f022bf6--ancient-greece-ancient-egypt[1].jpg (80KB, 613x540px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 613x540px

Absolutely not. Their power projection doesn't even come close to what the Roman, Achaemenid, the Mongol Empire and British Empire could. They can't even make Mexico pay for the wall, a country at their border. Their GDP is barely larger than China. Really the only thing America has is cultural hegemony, albeit that was set up nicely by the British Empire.

File: 7dabfb192b72b97372685ef0ecf1845e.png (108KB, 907x654px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 907x654px

>>3163460

>>3163083
This. The disagreement over the new Russia sanctions are a good indicator. US surpremacy is heavily based on shared cultural and political values. Under constant threat from the SU Europe was ready to overlook a lot of things but since the War on Terror started this rift is growing. The election of Trump which in reality has little political consequence.

The EU is going to develop a joint military due to Russia and Border Security. The Brexit on the other hand unites the EU and will lead to necessary reforms long term.

A more Independent EU, a rapidly arming China and a destabilized middle East with a meddling Russia is too much for the decaying American Economy.

America First isolationism is simply the political movement that formulates the widely held belief that America is caught in a state of Imperial overcommitment.

The new Great powera that emerge will be :

-USA
-EU
-China

Secondary powers:
-Russia
-GB (if the scots don't secede)
-Brazil
-India
-Australia


Middle East, Africa and Central Asia are the places were the Great powers and the Secondary powers meddle.

>>3163687
*which in reality has little political consequence furthers the cultural rift

>>3163609
>impoverished farmers hiding in caves and among the civilian populace
>get fucking obliterated the moment they poke their head out by a hellfire missile
>get lucky around once a month with an IED

Wow, such a great fighting force. 10/10

>>3163694

>US has to abandon gold standard
>military capacity for interventionist actions hampered for at least a decade
>draft has to be abolished

>>3163706
>US has to abandon gold standard
Cool
>military capacity for interventionist actions hampered for at least a decade
Literally not true because we're currently intervening with ISIS and we were the deciding force in their defeat.
>draft has to be abolished
Last I checked every 18 year old male is required to sign up for the draft.

>>3163719
>cool

Edgy. Shows you only know Pop History or you are trying to bait.

>muh IS

..
>for at least a decade
>Vietnam war appearantly happened in 2007

>muh you have to sign up

Ok. So the draft isn't abolished but isn't enforced. Because of Vietnam.

>>3162648
>Lost militarily
I think you should brush up on your Vietnam war history. Pussy libs wanted the US to pull out, and as soon as Nixon came in and took the gloves off they came begging for peace.

>>3163732
>Edgy. Shows you only know Pop History or you are trying to bait.
Cool.
>Vietnam war apparently happened in 2007
Not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
>Ok. So the draft isn't abolished but isn't enforced. Because of Vietnam.
Or maybe it isn't enforced because it isn't necessary at the moment. If actual war broke out with another country that wasn't a third-world shithole, the draft would be enforced.

>>3162990
All this butthurt in one post lmao

>fuck up in vietnam
>fuck up in Iraq
>fuck up in Afghanistan
>fuck up in Syria
>fuck up in iran (pending)

Why do Amerifats take so much pride in their armed forces?

>>3162990
Dear god that picture is a salt mine!

How are amerifags so delusional?

>we wuz greatest military n sheit
>lose against literal shitsticks

Wew

>>3162648
I didn't know Surface to air missiles and thousands of arms and latest migs counted as rusty farm tools

>>3162640
>greatest military force
>has had a pretty piss-poor track record since World War II
>draws if not outright losses against inferior forces
>only able to sweep through camel jockeys and even then they can't maintain order and fall prey to guerrilla tactics
The US military is all about force projection more than actual fighting ability. All bark, no bite. Take away the technology and they'd get stomped.

>>3162640
When? Its not so hard to win wars with 1:50 proportions with opponent.

File: file.png (356KB, 3000x2145px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 3000x2145px

>>3163794
>>3165113
Because conventional war between major powers has been all but made extinct by their rise to power, which is why most of these replies can only bring up insurgencies, guerrilla wars, and police actions in lieu of relevant discussion. We live in a period termed "the Long Peace" after all, as it's such a rarity in human history. A history in which the totality of US deaths from over a decade spent fighting multiple wars in the Middle East amounts to less than the number of American lives lost at Iwo Jima, a single battle in a conventional war.

>>3162640
Define "best"?

There's a lot of things a military can be the best at

best tactics?
best equipement?
most well trained soldiers?

tell us!

>>3165113
>draws if not outright losses against inferior forces
Like? Can you name a single battle America has lost decisively? Or are you just talking out of your ass about complex political situations you don't really know anything about?

>>3162640
It's the gayest because it doesn't fights. It just lays bombs at that's all

>>3165545

>putting lives as risk instead of just pushing a button because some guy thinks bombing is gay

>>3165444
I don't care about casualties and ratios and shit though. It's delusional to think that any of the us military's recent campaigns has been anything but a total failure to achieve its political and military goals.

>>3165458
It's not about decisive losses though. It's about a general inability to achieve military and political goals as well as adapt to guerilla tactics. Take Iraq for instance. The is curbstomped Saddam's conventional army, but completely failed to either secure the country or install a friendly regime.

>>3165871
It's the staggering contrast between the military's ability to achieve military goals and it's ineffectiveness as an instrument of foreign policy that's been debated since 2003.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs

>>3163031
>2012 China'd GDP
kek

File: 1494361738594.png (252KB, 500x403px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 500x403px

>>3165458
individual battle outcomes don't matter pedro - only the final result.

>>3166118
>humiliated
We threw the gooks completely out of the country and then got bored. We were not "humiliated"/

>>3162640
In relative terms...
ifyou analyze population, number of battles/wars and racio of win lose, dimension etc..

Usa are not in the top 5, i would go for:

-France
-England
-Portugal
-Russia
-Netherlands

>>3166222
France hasn't head a decent military victory since Napoleon
Talking about losing to sandnigger with Rusty tools have you ever heard of Algeria ?

>>3166337
France has 1000 years of battles, go analyze their all historical ratio and than say it again.

File: 1494361859295.jpg (267KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 800x560px

>>3166217
>fail all objectives
>lose billions in equipment
>lose thousands of troops
>'we won'

>>3166399
Their capitalist in the end, with one of the highest rates of approval for America

>>3166360
Literally irrelevant, besides France has been wrecked by multiple countries on you're list.

>>3166422
Burger, calling irrelevant to countries like France, England, Portugal or Netherlands, countries that shapped the face of the planet for centuries. USa appered in the scene yesterday son. and you are already about to fall.

>>3166454

Your time is over old man

>>3166454
Did you read my post? I'm talking about your bullshit medieval battles having anything to do with finding the absolute best military power
Besides France lost to Russia and Britain so how do you reconcile that you dirty fucking frog.

File: america28.jpg (105KB, 634x735px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 634x735px

>>3166422
>Their capitalist in the end, with one of the highest rates of approval for America

by this logic, since you all speak English, the Brits won the war of independence.

also 'they're' not 'their'

'You'll be as irrelevant as us soon!'
- people who can't change their own fucking tires

>>3162686
confirmed for never having played war

>>3166525
I forgot America was a communist insurgency during the war of independence.
The Vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism in a (ironically enough cause of this douche >>3166222) former French Colony, compare that to at all what you said.

>>3162728
>helicopters flying overhead
>shooting your guns in the air

>>3162767
what are your standards for not fucking up in a conflict?

>>3166519
No it's your country that is dying bro. "Minorities" will take over Usa it's a matter of time.

>>3166549

Minorities are taking over everywhere, it's inevitable. Atleast ours aren't Islamic, though.

>>3163719 pretty sure russia is doing more than the us to defeat isis

>>3162640
No.

Fighting to the death probably isn't even in your doctrine. Cowards with strong weapons =/= great military force, strong yeah, great no.

>>3166670
You're in idiot, show me where in the OP it says anything about the greatest warrior.

>>3166675
You're an idiot, show me where in my OP it says anything about the greatest warrior.

Guns have no honor

>>3166676
You're focusing on the individual warrior and you're a tard if you can't see how your post conveys that

>>3166536
>they are actual 19th century cavalry firing live rounds

On an individual or small unit level we still far surpass everyone with only Britain and France coming anywhere close. In actual high stakes war with no constraints, it's not much of a contest.

>>3166683
Not at all, care to try again. Some more context. It means your "great" army instead of suing your soldiers to fight a war is willing to destroy potentially innocent civilians in order to save their lives.

This is not the mark of a 'great' army you moron. Great armies do not exist anymore.

>>3166710
>instead of suing your soldiers
using.

>>3166710
Name me one war ever where an innocent civilian did not get killed

Hard mode no emu's or pots

>>3166742
>this is the point
At least you tried.

>>3166746
I believe your point was that cowards with better weapons don't make a superior military.
Stop moving the goal post

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-31 at 9.07.01 am.png (71KB, 620x396px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 620x396px

>>3166756
>I believe your point was that cowards with better weapons don't make a superior military.

Literally what. Can you not read?

>>3166670
>Cowards with strong weapons =/= great military force, strong yeah, great no.

A great force isn't necessarily only a strong force, see America. You cannot tell me a country which rapes it's allies during war, nukes civilians, burns civilians, explodes civilians, takes civilians out of their homes and executes them, is a great army.

The question is great, not strong. So stop moving the goal posts?

You're a fucking retard.

>>3166775

Surely to be a great army, the only qualifications is winning.

>>3166775
All is fair in love and war
Look at Alexander he massacred 35,000 civilians and annihilated the entire city he and his army is still thought of as great, I can't tell if you're retarded, a leftist, or both

>>3162640
In theory it should be. But I question the US's capability to wage a "real" war in the XXI century, mainly I question whether their soldiers and officers are trained and mentally prepared for a full-frontal fight against equally armed opponents.

The US force in the middle east basically acts as a military police, they never see the enemy, and they rarely ever fight it face to face, when a real military attack does take place it's usually done by vehicles and drones, hardly ever does the infantry have to go in themselves. The US military is bend on proving that soldiers are obsolete, and they've had mixed results, unlikely to stand up against a real military force as it is right now.

>>3163008
Destroy America's economy, and you destroy it's military.

Explain to me how that isn't the case for any non-paramilitary force in history.

>>3162640
Obviously Yes.

>>3166820
The US military is like Saitama from one punch man.

It never sees a worthy opponent because there's no such thing.

If anyone tries to stand and fight, they end up like Saddam or Noriega.

Everyone with more power than Saddam did already has nuclear weapons or friends with nuclear weapons and can't be attacked in a conventional war.

>>3166858
Situation that could change over time, tho admittedly it isn't fair to speak of the "what if" because "what if" also implies that the military forces have changed too. I am however interested in seeing if the US's army current idea that you don't need infantry in modern war holds up.

>>3166879
As I understand it it's more that infantry is relatively hard to deploy and takes high casualties, which makes it inflexible as a political tool

This is also why the US has a boner for "local partners"

It's so wherever a war pops up, the US can provide an instant air force overnight and our allies (I'm presuming the US won't be stupid enough to get into a war if our of our allies hasn't already been attacked) can provide the bulk of the ground forces.

This being said, the US took out Saddam with only 100,000 men, and we don't really seem likely to encounter any ground campaigns much larger in scale than Iraqi Freedom.

>>3162703
>100 million armed civilian ready to blast away anyone who threatens their freedom.
This is a meme

The American populace is so far removed from the actual rigours, horror, and stress of war compared to literally any other country that they'd be largely ineffective for a long while

And the people who were are either dead, mentally ill, homeless, or worse because your country doesn't give a fuck about them

>>3162640
Wehrmacht because they fought for a righteous cause.

>>3166961
A Michigan milita man won a 2016 international sniping competition

The idea that Cletus and his AR-15 is gonna take on a Chinese invasion might be laughable, but there are certainly a lot of armed militias in the US that practice for firefights.

>>3166820
>Explain to me how that isn't the case for any non-paramilitary force in history.
Again, that doesn't refute my point. Other armies being unsustainable without a good economy doesn't invalidate my point that America's military will be destroyed if it's is also destroyed.

>>3167401
Economy*

File: USN_ships.jpg (3MB, 9996x6664px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 9996x6664px

*blocks your path*

>>3162680

>foreigners relish the thought of reduction in american military power
>mfw they're too stupid to think about who will fill the power vacuum

File: Picture1.png (624KB, 460x526px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 460x526px

>>3163687
But wouldn't it basically just be another Holy Roman Empire where the emperor just comes from whichever country has the most economic pull? Smaller states don't always like the policy and very few would agree to the necessary cohesion to create a legitimate state. I agree that the EU isn't in its death throes just because Poland is assmad, but how could they realistically compete with a state like China? When you consider how legitimately politically fractured the US is becoming on geographic lines, China (-Tibet,-Xinjiang) is starting to look like the most unified power.

pic semi-related

>>3167401
Like all armies. You can't have war without a stable organized society, duh.

>>3167537
>Like all armies. You can't have war without a stable organized society, duh.
Again, that doesn't refute my point, and i didn't say a ''stable organized society.'' Only a collapsed economy.

>>3167553
I will elevate your point even further, have you ever consider that, if you removed all oxygen from the planet, the US army would be completely destroyed?

File: 423C953D.png (363KB, 1380x820px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1380x820px

>>3167502
>China without the politically unstable parts is politically stable
woah

>>3163609
Literally incapable of preventing their populace form being genocided if an invader chooses to stop being merciful. Guerillas are all shit tier.

>>3163732
>Ok. So the draft isn't abolished but isn't enforced
Except it is enforced. You can't fucking vote unless you sign up.

>>3165887
>or install a friendly regime.
Except exactly that was done.

>>3166360
France has not existed for 1000 years. Go we wuz somewhere else.

>>3167578
Just take some hormones bruh.

>>3166775
Your own image directly contradicts you. Your attempt to redefine "great" to mean "nice" is laughable.

File: Pepe..jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>3167582
>Except exactly that was done.
The current Iraqi Shia government is an Iranian puppet regime that funds and supplies Hezbollah with men and weapons. They are in now way ''friendly.''

>>3167603
No way*

>>3167603
People say that outright annexing the country would be a lot more expensive and not convenient, but I don't honestly believe so.

>>3167603
thanks Bush!

>>3166820
>But I question the US's capability to wage a "real" war in the XXI century, mainly I question whether their soldiers and officers are trained and mentally prepared for a full-frontal fight against equally armed opponents.
...It literally has more training for this exact occurrence than any other force on the planet, along with up to date doctrine, equipment, and an exceptional amount of institutional memory to guide it.

>MUH INFANTRY DOESN'T GO IN ALONE
Yes, that's what happens when you can afford to mechanize your armed forces. The infantry works with armor because that is inherently superior.

Regardless, infantry goes alone non fucking stop in Afghanistan, because that is what mountain warfare demands.

>unlikely to stand up against a real military force as it is right now.
Which "real military force" has more experience in conducting large scale offensive operations?

>I am however interested in seeing if the US's army current idea that you don't need infantry in modern war holds up.
The US army has literally never held this idea,ever. That is a retarded strawman.

>>3167615
Seriously, this is the shit the US army is working on right now:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/


But no, no idea how a conventional war works, and certainly no focus on it. Ignore the massive fleet of tanks and IFVs, ignore that the infantry still trains in concert with armor to defeat peer level adversaries, carries anti-tank munitions, and is equipped on par with the best infantry in the world.


The US is totally lost, and in fact is trying to get rid of infantry, even though they're plainly trying to increase their killing power and survivability up to an including trying to create armor for the fucking airborne.

File: us_military_bases_outside_us.jpg (449KB, 1291x785px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1291x785px

>>3162645
In absolute terms - or rather - in terms of "whose military can be whose", yes, hands down. Even against previous iterations of the same US military.

I suppose, removing the nukes, and creating the fictional scenario where all forces are plopped into a desert somewhere, some periods of cold war USSR's conventional military could beat the USA military of the same era, provided they were set toe to toe. The USA's force projection kinda makes that null and void though - and the nukes certainly do (though the definition of "win" gets fuzzy at that point.) China also has a larger military, in terms of personnel, but not power. Of course, go before WWII, and the US becomes a minor power, at best, more so the further back you go, even if it was never shabby for its weight class.

In relative terms, however... Maybe in the top ten, but probably not the top three. In terms of projection it's entirely unmatched (but well, so is mankind in general), but in terms of sheer conquest by force, there's plenty of other empires that have gone further and longer, relative to their known worlds, and plenty where their rulership was less contested - and a good number of those stood on a foundation more solid than this house of cards (though some were built on air, and were short lived as a result).

In terms of effectively controlled and influenced area of territory, however, combining not just the military, but also the economic and political factors, the USA hemogeny is pretty much unmatched.

For better or worse. (I mean, let's face it, it could be worse.)

>the wealthiest, most powerful nation in XXXX
>had the strongest military in XXXX

wow, who'd -a-thunk?

>>3166399
We're talking about the US military, not the US politcal machine. Get out of this thread you agent-orange mutant gook. There are deadly chemicals and unexploded ordinance all over your country but you guys won so its all good :)

>>3167647
>Even against previous iterations of the same US military.
Arguable. Current military VS 1994 US military is too close to call.

>>3167654
Fuck off Nathan.

>>3167654
The communications and logistics of the 2017 military is vastly superior to the 1994 military. Better cruise missiles, drones, missile shields, all around.

I mean, yeah, they had maybe 20% more nukes, but all that does is make both armies slightly more dead. (We'll be kind to the scenario and also ignore the relative size of the respective economies fueling all that hypothetical rage.)

>>3167646
>>3166820
You're absolutely retarded. Noone in their right mind thinks the US isn't trained in joint combat. Commanders all over the world marvel at the idea that a company level commander can call down tons and tons of ordinance at any given time. American military officers are as well trained as any in the world. If you want to compare them to long dead officers...sure you win. But the US officer corp is easily the largest pool and most experienced pool of experience in the world. You keep saying the US is trying to abandon the use of the soldier? Why? Because they use unmanned drones to fight insurgency? Are you retarded?
The US excells at combined arms combat and is probably the ONLY country with experience wielding it in any great numbers. The US always had AFVs and humvees accompanying their armor, which is the definition of infantry accompanying armor.

>>3167646
You realize what "infantry accompying armor" means right? Its not infantry on foot, its infantry in armored fighting vehichles. The Germans had halftracks in WW2 and the US has AFVs in 2017. You literally don't have any idea what you're talking about.

>>3167660
No, its "1994 US military vs world" vs "2017 US military vs world" not "1994 us military vs 2017 us military"

>>3162990
t. Kraut

File: Smug Devil Dog.png (410KB, 600x736px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 600x736px

>>3162990
So what you're saying is.... we're good at killing shit for the sake of it?

I can be proud of that

>tfw captcha says "chinkabee"

>>3167672
That's not what you quoted.

Though, in that case, I suppose 20% more nukes would be a slight advantage... Though probably not as much as the stronger worldwide presence, information gathering ability, and logistics. ...and the 2017 distribution of forces, vs the 1994 distribution, with so many of our boats just outside NKorea and so many more military bases in the Middle East. Then you have to take into account the military status of the rest of the world, in 1994 vs. 2017.

Too many factors, would need to do more research, can't be bothered.

What will happen if the US ignores the badboy limit and go full conquest on the entire world?

>>3167744
A European coalition would be formed against it.

Chinks and Ruskies would probably take the chance to snatch a bite off the eagle.

>>3163428
You can if you genocide them.

>>3167763
>euro coalition

European military forces are essentially non functional without US support.

>>3167789
Yes but the US would be losing every single trade partner and going to war against the world, which would be a long,bloody war, that would be a victory for nobody.

>>3166858
>>3166820
>>3167401
>>3167615
>>3167664
Don't worry guys aliens will invade planet Earth and in that moment the US will have its chance to prove itself. Don't ask me why I know this, I just know it.

File: Alaska.webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>>3167797
>alien invasion scenario where America finally gets to release its final form
I dream of this every night desu

File: military-dolphins-help-defend-the-worlds-largest-stockpile-of-nuclear-weapons.jpg (149KB, 1656x1242px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1656x1242px

The military has the capability to turn the world to ashes hundreds if not thousands of times over... Politics and rules keep that from happening... politics and rules are why Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc etc were fucked up. The military is only as capable as the civilians in charge want it to be.

>>3167860
Especially when (in the case of the US), the leader of the Armed Forces is always a civilian.
(unless they have a military background)

>>3167763
lol ya that'll be so scary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GPC9xAHcY

>>3167865
Hearts and minds boils down to winning the hearts and minds of our own populace....

File: maxresdefault.jpg (159KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1280x720px

>>3162640
Seriously though, what if all the U.S. military forces turned into full sized anacondas? I really want to know.

>>3167875
>DCS
might as well post Ace Combat, bucko

>>3167885
Or Air Warrior, young child.

>>3167885
Don't get your titties in a twist over a hypothetical thread containing hypothetical answers.

>>3167893
Air Combat released in '95, dummy.

>>3167902
Yep, way back in 95... before you were even a twinkle in your mother's black boyfriend's eye. Wonder where he went?

>>3163428
Bar Kobah
It can be done, you just need to stop pretending the enemy is human

>>3163039
...which means only those countries who are 99% self dependent (in both wartime and peacetime) could stand a chance against an economically devestated America. Assuming that you don't piss off the other 95% of the world whose economies you just fucked over and they don't go to war against you as well.

>>3167567
But China without those parts would still be nearly as successful as it is now. Unlike Europe or the US where if a chunk left on the political divides they have now, they'd lose a huge portion if the population and its industry. Tibet and Xinhiang are there for land and population, that's it. The vital industry, farmland, and mining begins east of those provinces

>>3167883
What happened to good ole snekposting?

>>3167946
>...which means only those countries who are 99% self dependent (in both wartime and peacetime) could stand a chance against an economically devestated America. Assuming that you don't piss off the other 95% of the world whose economies you just fucked over and they don't go to war against you as well.
That still doesn't refute my point. An economically devastated America won't have the ability to invade other countries and will be a regional power at best. America would no longer be able to invade other countries and would have to pull out of the countries it currently occupies like Afghanistan, which would mean the end of American Hegemony.

>>3167966
You are not smart, what you are saying basically is "if the US had a massive disaster happen at home it would affect their it's status as a super power'.

>>3167983
That's true though

>>3167983
>You are not smart, what you are saying basically is "if the US had a massive disaster happen at home it would affect their it's status as a super power'.
Again, you still haven't refuted my point. A destroyed American economy would still mean a destroyed American military that could no longer invade other countries,

>>3166616
Muslims are a drop in the sea compared to USA minorities, stop listening to /pol/ memes.

>60 %

>>3167992
You don't have a point. You are just putting something any retard would know just trough common sense into words.

Now quit shitposting.

>>3168013
Still haven't refuted my point. A shattered American economy means a shattered American military, Which means the American military isn't invincible and can be defeated.

File: Kek..png (24KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 657x527px

>>3168013
>You don't have a point. You are just putting something any retard would know just trough common sense into words.
>Now quit shitposting.
>Being this mad.

>>3167502
>How legitmately politically fracture the US is becoming
You mean the same two party system we had since the Civil War.who are always debating with each other, but know to shut up when something actually threatens the US.

>>3168047
But dude, a bunch of faggots on twitter have been spamming #calexit, that means we're going for Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo any minute now!

O B S E S S E D

>>3168038
Nothing is invincible

>>3167860
...and that would be why the world is not ash.

Ya look at any of those scenarios, and extermination of the populous wasn't the goal.

Extermination is easy - winning a hostile populous you've been killing to your side - that's fucking hard.

>>3162648
Oh no, we were kicking their ass on the field of battle. There was one anecdote where a former LTC or Col was talking to a Vietnamese and he said "You know, you never won a single battle" and the Vietnamese said "We didn't have to". They were prepared to take 10 to 1 casualties.

>>3162728
What is a ceremony?

>>3162648
this has to be a troll. if not it's a retard

>>3167797
In that scenario US would be the first to sold the world out and volunteer to do the Aliens biddings.

>>3162640
Yes. We have complete military projection of our Air Force, Navy, and Army as well as Marine branches in every region of the globe. The closet precedent to this style of power was the First French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars under Napoleon and the British Empire at its height.

I dont recall rome having any neer peers after carthage fell. Usa has two right now and a potential 3rd in india and potential 4th if the EU federalises

>>3170150
>India
>ever being anywhere near USA in terms of power projection and cultural hegemony
good joke.

>>3162640
Best air power, and that's all that matters in modern conflict when you can pay the local peasants to do the ground fighting for you.

>>3163081
>debt mattering when you control the international standard currency

>>3162648
>greatest military force in human history
>cant beat some sandniggers with rusty AK's in caves

File: vdv1.jpg (127KB, 800x579px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x579px

>>3170381
oops, forgot image

>>3162648
though we DID win every battle

that should at least give us some points.

>>3162641
Absolute term, yes (our military can definitely defeat the Roman Legions at its peak)

Relative terms hard to say any big war will inevitably result in nukes so the world besides a few shitholes avoid it.

>>3162648
Soviet weaponry in the 60s was by all means superior to American dogshit. The only thing the Viets didn't have was air superiority.

>>3167647
>In relative terms, however... Maybe in the top ten, but probably not the top three.
The thing is that the US has absolute naval supremacy. The US could take on the combined navies of the rest of the world and stand a chance of winning, even the Royal Navy at its height couldn't hope to accomplish that.

File: impressive.jpg (64KB, 700x714px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x714px

By size: No - China 2.3 Million active members.

By brutalism: No - Russian soldiers raped 5.6 million german women in the end stages of WW2 and murdered millions of surrendering enemy combatants.

By coverage: - No. The British empire colonial army/navy spanned 1/3 of the worlds human population.

By technical expertise: - No. The Japanese have superior battlefield communication and observation technology, the South Koreans are developing better jets, and the Norwegian army has faster land vehicles and better assault weapons/artillery.

By victories: - Hahahahaha no.

File: 1390015022343.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>3171125
>By coverage: - No. The British empire colonial army/navy spanned 1/3 of the worlds human population.

>the United States is able to power project literally anywhere in the world within 24 hours
>but it doesnt count because it doesnt occupy the land it power projects

>By victories - Hahahaha no.
>losing by political interference while winning almost every military engagement means you lost militarily

10/10 made me reply

>>3171125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vifYelSTlMo

>>3163794
>>fuck up in Syria
Are you referring to the creation of ISIS? because if anything, their existence only served our own purposes quite well. It made us look stupid, but people would make up some other excuse for why America is everything bad ever

>>3162648
not really a good comparison since the term war is not entirely applicable to the action in Vietnam. remember that at no point was North Vietnam ever invaded by the United States. if you understand the Strategic essence of that in action then you will understand that we were never really at War. it was more like a very bloody peacekeeping action.

>>3162767
there's a cognitive dissonance between America's love for its armed forces and its ultimate distaste for the invasion of other countries. it afflicts the left and right in this country. our desire to see our military conquer is often sorted by the idea of our children dying on a foreign field.

>>3162891
I have to disagree when it comes to the British Empire. while it did defeat France in the wars of the 18th century it's only opponents in the 19th century we're armed with Spears. there is literally nothing to be proud about when it comes to the British Empire unless shooting unarmed natives is considered manly.

>>3162990
I have to hope the this poster is not European Chinese or Japanese since that would make them the ultimate hypocrite.

>>3163008
well true that statement is applicable to Any Nation

>>3163144
a wildly inaccurate statement containing no citations whatsoever, let me guess you must be a European...

>>3163200
pathetic is what I would call the Canadian Army after having served with them

>>3163217
don't try and confuse a Canadian the game is far too easy and the prey is far too confused already

>>3163609
silly anti-American rhetoric does not make you sound intelligent.

>>3163619
America's first projection is unmatched in world history that you don't know that is an indication of that least you're poor knowledge of strategy and military history. there has been no other country in the history of the world that can project as many airplanes ships and soldiers at any point in any place in the world as the United States military can. and please no English penis envy the only people you ever fall and one against held Spears.

>>3165871
I don't care about facts just give me my anti-americanism.

>>3165113
take away the technology and we would get stomped. I would say the same about the Brits and the Zulus. but since half of Britain is now Zulu that doesn't really matter.

>>3165545
a silly little man that knows nothing about war

>>3167597
If you do not believe an army must be "nice" to one's enemies civilians in order to qualify as being "great" then you're an idiot.

>>3172208
All that doesn't count for much when you can't use actually project political will. Everything the US military touches turns to shit.

In terms of using military force to actually subjugate others, there have been none better than the likes of the Romans, British, Persians etc.

>>3173406
>All that doesn't count for much when you can't use actually project political will
>The US hasn't projected political will once in its entire existence using its military
???
I've heard some real retarded shit on /his/, but this really takes the cake.

the red army, rev. france
late republican roman legions

>>3162640

In every term except one:

The only force at any point which was more globally dominant was the American military in 1992. Right after the collapse of the USSR, and before the real military prowess of China began to rear its head.

However, given the recency, I don't think it's unfair to call the modern-day US military the most dominant military force of all time.

>>3173444
Since the end of WW2 US foreign military adventures have been weak, Korea was a stalemate that has festered, Vietnam was lost, Somalia and Afghanistan are still fucked, and the Iraq war has led to the Middle East being just a fucked as ever. Not exactly blazing a trail of glory.

The US military has all the tools to defeat foreign powers, but apparently no ability to ensure stability, or impress the long term will of US foreign policy goals.

>>3173926
The USA has great toys and logistics, probably the best one in history be far(and that's what decides wars lots of times), but the culture isn't a military one, but a merchantile one. They can't take loses well, are fucking retarded in the field (like in Afghanistan, spending a shit load of money to do fuck all, training people than will shot them back in a week like ISIS etc) and they generals are more politcal beast out of touch with the acutal military needs of they men.
They lose more people to suicide than in any other way for fuck sake. They stumbled into being a great power and didn't even improve the live of they people in a great degree, see the fucking ghettoes, places like Flint without drinkable water,the insanse murder rate for a "civilized and rich" country, people than dies because they don't have a good medical coverage, the absolute states of the student debt etc.
At least it's nice for the ones than aren't being bombed or under they umbrella, the atomic bombs are a great detterent for not bombing our neighbors. But for being an hegemon they aren't that hot.

>>3173999
>fucking ghettos
>implying ghettos are even nearly as bad as European no-go zones

>cherrypicking a singular national outrage as a general example of populace wellbeing

>people dying because of no good medical coverage
>being this uneducated on how our medical system work

>didn't even improve the lives of their people in a great degree
>because society has problems now that means that society hasnt improved over time

>implying any of that has anything to do with military ability
It sounds to me you're just bitching about Americlaps rather than any sort of argument about military ability

>>3162668
oh no you couldnt, you used everything there is to use including chemical warfare and you still lost. using nukes would have also changed nothing because in fact the usa dropped so many bombs on vietnam the tnt equivalent is that of around 1000 hiroshima bombs. and you still lost. you deployed basically your whole military there, lost >60.000 men, and you still lost. you spent so much money on that war that you couldnt keep the gold standard/bretton woods system going, and you still lost.

America is so tough they dont have the balls to take on Iran or North Korea, let alone Russia or China

>>3174320
America is pretty shit but.
Like, just the whole country.

>>3174435
And the rest of the world is shit in its own shitty ways. Whatever country you're from is probably also shit.
Doesnt change the fact that the US has one of the most powerful militaries in existance

>>3174466

Only on paper

>>3174477
I'll bite, what countries rival America in strength?

>>3174477
>can defeat any conventional military in an engagement and can power project anywhere in the world within 24 hours
>but it loses to guerilla tactics, which every conventional army has failed against to since the Roman era, so its only powerful on paper
Loving every laugh

File: wrong_screwdriver.jpg (481KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1920x1080px

>>3174490
>>3173999
You can beat guerilla tactics on your own soil fairly easily. Most civil wars are lost by the revolutionaries for this reason. Provided you put them down quickly and keep the majority of public opinion against them via your superior local PR, you'll be fine.

When it comes to wars abroad however, it's much more likely you'll simply alienate the populous and simply continuously generate more guerillas as the war drags on. So, unless you're willing to eliminate the entire populous, regardless of the military might you apply, you can't win. The more you try and the longer it takes, the worse your situation gets.

The military is a great tool as a diplomatic threat, for destroying other militaries, and ending other's nation's ability to make war, or economically function.

But as a tool to win hearts and minds, it utterly sucks ass.

The entire world's modern military, ten times over, could have fought Vietnam, and every other war America lost or fubared (save maybe Korea), and if they had the same goals, the results would have been much the same.

As one Vietnamese guy said, "Great foreign powers continuously invade us, but each of them are repelled as they all forget one simple fact: The Vietnamese must live in Vietnam - but the invaders, eventually, have to go home."

The only reason the US has a bad track record when set against its overwhelming power is due to an old adage:
>"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail."

File: 1315873013600.jpg (58KB, 600x436px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x436px

>>3174490
>>3174489

Since WW2, America has only beaten Grenada and lost everywhere else.

>i-i-insurgencies dont count because we always lose!

ok kid

>w-w-we can defeat any country we want but we choose not to just because!

Because you will get your ass kicked by the insurgency?

>>3174672
>Since WW2, America has only beaten Grenada and lost everywhere else.
Except that's flat out wrong

>>3162648
Invading Vietnam has never gone well for the attackers.

>>3175941

Give me a list of all these successful invasions then, because I cant seem to find any.

>>3176384
You aren't trying very hard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

I want to say, if you're old enough to post on this board, you should remember Panama, but then I remember how fucking old I am. (Though I do remember one painfully embarrassing fuck up there.)

Not that we don't have a shit record given the power available, but like >>3174589 said, we have a very bad habit of using the military to do things it simply cannot do, no matter how good it is.

Though I disagree with his final comment - it's not the only tool we have - just the biggest one we have, and much like your dick, if we don't use it, we lose it, so we tend to stick it in every hornet nest and beehive in sight.

>>3176448

Oh geez how could I forget Panama too. So thats two tiny irrelevant noncountries with a combined population of 4 million that the US has managed to successfully invade and take over.
So this is the might of the US military.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

Honestly dont see anything else in there other than limited police actions and stand off bombings.

>>3167789
Depend which country... I would say UK and France are ok but the rest is pretty bad.

>>3162640
>in human history
>usa founded in 18th century
lol
Pretty sure Andorra has a better military record.

>>3172143
Untrue, you forget the two Boer wars. Only wars they fought in the 19th century against Europeans and lost the first and had a Pyrrhic victory in the second, after depleting most of their funds and deploying 500 000 men against 45 000. Only won due to what amounts to genocidal pogroms against civilians.

>>3163436
Reminds me of 2009 - 20010 when people were mad at illuminatos

>>3162640
This is a stupid question. It's like if some jackass asked "Is the Assyrian military the greatest military in human history" on some fucking outhouse sign post, when they are the most advanced civilization around. Of course they are, they have the benefit of being more advanced than their predecessors.

File: and it works better on women.jpg (16KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 360x270px

>>3176584
>Honestly dont see anything else in there other than limited police actions and stand off bombings.
Well, with maybe two exceptions, that's all we've had since WWII. It is, indeed, all we can have, without initiating WWIII.

Panama maybe a pissant nation, but almost all nations are when set against the US, and it is host to the single most important canal on the planet. (Which is the real reason we had the war.)

Closest thing we've had to a real military vs. military conflict was Iraq, which, during the first gulf war, was estimated to have the fourth most powerful army in the world at the time (albeit, there's quite a gap between third and fourth place there). ...Defeating their military, that part at least, went much more smoothly than anyone expected, it was over and done in a matter of weeks with almost no hiccups. "Mission Accomplished" indeed - it's just that the rest of that mission plan didn't involve anything any military had any business doing.

A military can remove governments (provided you don't care who replaces them), it can coerce governments, prevent specific national actions, annex territory (provided you're ready to move in sufficient numbers of your own population to displace the original inhabitants), it can cripple nations, militarily or economically. And, if you really want it to, it can just kill everyone in an area.

But killing Bobby McGee's brother and blowing his family home does nothing to win him to your side, regardless of how many times or how efficiently you do it, and just breeds more and more folks like his brother. You can't use the military to make the people you're killing love you. That sort of coercion is 50/50, even with battered wife syndrome.