Day of Infamy Options

[cupcake]

65 years ago, on this day, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

When the Dec. 7, 1941, onslaught was over, there were 2,403 dead and thousands others wounded.

Besides the mass causalities in the two waves of attacks that lasted less than two hours, the Japanese also had sunk or damaged 18 ships and destroyed more than 180 aircraft.

It was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare, "a day of infamy."

The next day, America was at war.

Although it was a day of great tragedy, it was also a day that revived our national pride and strengthened our determination as a nation.

This spirit of unity and reborn patriotism had "awakened the sleeping giant" and ultimately led us to victory and the end of World War II.

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

[Hartmann]

I was just about to post something about this and I completely agree with your post.


Just a quick bit of trivia. Japan did not fire the first shots... We did.

[Seeker]

Roosevelt knew that Japan planned to attack Pearl Harbor 30 min before the attack happened (saw it on the History Channel this morning while getting ready for work). He declined to warn Pearl Harbor and save lives because he wanted America thrust into the war.

[Hartmann]

Roosevelt knew that Japan planned to attack Pearl Harbor 30 min before the attack happened (saw it on the History Channel this morning while getting ready for work). He declined to warn Pearl Harbor and save lives because he wanted America thrust into the war.

I believe you are referring to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories show...

There was no way to know of an impending attack, even with the radar station on the island.

[Seeker]

Nope, it wasn't a conspiracy show. The Japanese did not believe in surprise attacks, it is samurai custom to wake your enemy from sleep and give him a sword to defend himself before you fight. The Japanese ambassador delivered a letter to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior to the attack, but Roosevelt had known about it even earlier because the U.S. had intercepted the information in the letter way earlier. The U.S. typically intercepted communications from Japan to the Ambassador before the Ambassador even got it. Nevertheless, the letter was still delivered to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior.

The show was on the History Channel around 8 this morning. It wasn't a conspiracy show, check tvguide.com or Yahoo TV.

[The Fanatic]

Lance is right

[Hartmann]

Nope, it wasn't a conspiracy show. The Japanese did not believe in surprise attacks, it is samurai custom to wake your enemy from sleep and give him a sword to defend himself before you fight. The Japanese ambassador delivered a letter to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior to the attack, but Roosevelt had known about it even earlier because the U.S. had intercepted the information in the letter way earlier. The U.S. typically intercepted communications from Japan to the Ambassador before the Ambassador even got it. Nevertheless, the letter was still delivered to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior.

The show was on the History Channel around 8 this morning. It wasn't a conspiracy show, check tvguide.com or Yahoo TV.

I have heard this as well and don't deny it. My conspiracy comment was in regards to your "Roosevelt refused to alert Pearl Harbor" comments.

So what was Roosevelt supposed to do in those 30 minutes? Single handedly shoot down the entire Japanese Navy's attack force? Pearl Harbor was warned several times about a potential attack that morning. However, scrambling aircraft and readying guns, etc. was impossible to do, especially in 30 minutes. Even more of an undertaking would have been to get the fleet "under way" and out of the harbor. The Nevada attempted to exit the harbor but that was scrubbed and she was beached to avoid her being sunk in the entrance.

Talk to someone who was there. They could have known hours in advance and still not been able to prevent (or significantly mitigate) destruction of the fleet.

I would almost venture to say that a 30 minute warning could have done more harm than good. Ships could have been in the harbor entrance at the time of the attack and sunk there. That would delay our response and movement into the Pacific Theater for who knows how long.

[Seeker]

They would at least have had time to wake up and get the antiaircraft guns ready.

[Hartmann]

They would at least have had time to wake up and get the antiaircraft guns ready.

I am reading an account of that morning and there it states that at 6:30am Hawaii time, a full "Be on Alert" is issued for every Pacific base because though Roosevelt was "warned" of attack, he was not told exactly where. This warning was not received until 7:33am Hawaii time. 22 minutes later the attack was underway.

Pearl Harbor did not have an intricate communications network, most ships were contacted one by one or by light signaling. It wasn't like you could pick up a phone and turn on a giant siren that people below deck could hear

[Trespass]

I am reading an account of that morning and there it states that at 6:30am Hawaii time, a full "Be on Alert" is issued for every Pacific base because though Roosevelt was "warned" of attack, he was not told exactly where. This warning was not received until 7:33am Hawaii time. 22 minutes later the attack was underway.

Pearl Harbor did not have an intricate communications network, most ships were contacted one by one or by light signaling. It wasn't like you could pick up a phone and turn on a giant siren that people below deck could here

Hartman, stop your logic this minute, we are trying to hate the government damn it!

Oh and i completely agree with Cupcake... sadly

[impala454]

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

this is impossible to speculate... i dunno why you would even try, it makes no sense. today's american society was molded by those wars, if they hadn't happened we'd live in a completely different society.

even if you thought society would have no change, there is no force from any country existing today that has the ability to wage any kind of conventional war on us. and imho the general feelings about collateral damage & nuclear weapons use in other countries far away would change drastically if someone was to actually start dropping bombs on us. remember the fire lit under the american population after 9/11? we wanted nothing more than to do the worst to those responsible. i'd bet that if we'd caught osama a week after 9/11 and he was supposedly "tortured" while in custody, you'd have had DVDs being sold of it rather than people investigating it.

[FORSAKENR320]

this is impossible to speculate... i dunno why you would even try, it makes no sense. today's american society was molded by those wars, if they hadn't happened we'd live in a completely different society.

even if you thought society would have no change, there is no force from any country existing today that has the ability to wage any kind of conventional war on us. and imho the general feelings about collateral damage & nuclear weapons use in other countries far away would change drastically if someone was to actually start dropping bombs on us. remember the fire lit under the american population after 9/11? we wanted nothing more than to do the worst to those responsible. i'd bet that if we'd caught osama a week after 9/11 and he was supposedly "tortured" while in custody, you'd have had DVDs being sold of it rather than people investigating it.

for once i actually agree with you. american history has always shown we are quick to mobilize for war, but usually we as americans tire of it really quickly. the thing i agree with you the most is about the 9/11 incident. yes, it lit a fire under our asses and got us lashing out, but imagine what the response would have been if it were a legitimate bombing attack from a country, similar to pearl harbor. i believe that americans would have taken it to such an extreme that the attacking country either wouldn't exist, or would be so torn apart that it couldn't easily recover, (risking another situation like world war 2)

[cupcake]

live in your utopian 'americans are the end-all badasses' dreamworld...and I'll live in reality. I'm sure yours is much more palatable and cozy. I bet you sleep well.

modern-day americans* are pampered snots who would rather pick apart every little flaw a leader, decision, action makes, be interested in conspiracy theories, etc... than actually pull their boots up and endure the hardships to do what needs to be done.

this isn't a political party thing. this is an american thing. the reps talk out both sides of their mouths, led us into an ill-advised situation, and never fully committed to stomping a mudhole in anyone; whereas the dems just whined and poked at the policy, thus weakening us further, and now they have the motherloving GALL to suggest diplomacy AFTER we already created our enemies. and rest assured, the guys we are fighting right now are not the same guys who wanted us dead in 2001.

Diplomacy...FUCK YEAH!

americans today do not have the patience to wait for their hotpocket to finish nuking, nor do they have the stomach or fortitude to endure a battle of attrition. If we cannot deal with it in Iraq (where we've lost 3000 men over 3 years), HOW IN THE HELL can you justify that we'd be cool with the slaughterous nature of the big WWII battles? We couldn't...

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

*disclaimer...as with all things there are anomalies. there are still americans who are of the 'hardman' mindset and will, but definately not the popular majority...nor in the political corps.

[Hartmann]

I agree completely. Our way of life has changed a lot since WWII and the hard times that this country was experiencing before the war. "Work" has changed meanings. It used to mean being out in the field, working on a highrise building, or some other manual labor. Now it means sitting in a cube, eating McD's for lunch, and going home to watch TV. We're the epitome of lazy though we would staunchly deny it with our 8 hour "work"days.

[Divergent Realit...]

remember, not everyone can sit on the bridge of a star destroyer, they need people to fill those storm trooper helmets.





the empire needs you.

[jonathan83]

"Work" has changed meanings. It used to mean being out in the field, working on a highrise building, or some other manual labor. Now it means sitting in a cube

sorry to break it to ya, but this is reality all over the world. Times change, jobs change.

[jonathan83]

haha and no offense to hartmann, bc i usually agree with him and he seems cool. but this is what seems to happen in threads with cupcake.

Cupcake: "blah blah something about war or guns or military or some deep political thought"
Hartmann: I totally agree.

This post has been edited by jonathan83: Dec 8 2006, 12:08 PM

[cupcake]

sorry to break it to ya, but this is reality all over the world. Times change, jobs change.

there's no way in hell the people who wish us dead are as fat and spoiled as we are.

you can't possibly make that argument.

[Hartmann]

haha and no offense to hartmann, bc i usually agree with him and he seems cool. but this is what seems to happen in threads with cupcake.

Cupcake: "blah blah something about war or guns or military or some deep political thought"
Hartmann: I totally agree.

Mostly because Cupcake and I agree and I have other points to add onto what he said. Threads don't always have to be:

Someone: I'm right.
Someone2: No, I'm right.
Someone: I'm right more than you.
Someone2: No, I more right than you.
Someone3: I am more right than everyone.

[cupcake]

haha and no offense to hartmann, bc i usually agree with him and he seems cool. but this is what seems to happen in threads with cupcake.

Cupcake: "blah blah something about war or guns or military or some deep political thought"
Hartmann: I totally agree.

wow you're kind of a dick?

some people agree on things. crazy! I agree with others on here a lot and say so. doesn't make me some yes-man or patsy.

[pebkac]

live in your utopian 'americans are the end-all badasses' dreamworld...and I'll live in reality. I'm sure yours is much more palatable and cozy. I bet you sleep well.

modern-day americans* are pampered snots who would rather pick apart every little flaw a leader, decision, action makes, be interested in conspiracy theories, etc... than actually pull their boots up and endure the hardships to do what needs to be done.

this isn't a political party thing. this is an american thing. the reps talk out both sides of their mouths, led us into an ill-advised situation, and never fully committed to stomping a mudhole in anyone; whereas the dems just whined and poked at the policy, thus weakening us further, and now they have the motherloving GALL to suggest diplomacy AFTER we already created our enemies. and rest assured, the guys we are fighting right now are not the same guys who wanted us dead in 2001.

You talk like America was any different during WWII or any other war. In fact, America was probably less willing to fight a war then. Both FDR and Wilson ran on platforms that they wouldn't get America involved in either World War, and that's what won the elections for them. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the Lusitania that the majority of the country wanted to get involved. Nowadays, we get involved in wars over the most minor things.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Dec 8 2006, 01:39 PM

[cupcake]

I just...what the?

I'm talking about Americans having more resolve and fortitude back then. I don't recall ever saying anything about "wanting to go to war". But when pushed, the didn't tippy-toe or be PC or political about it. They obviously banded together for the common good and took care of business.

That hasn't happened since...and we've only grown more PC and divided. Have we not?

[Billy]

It does not matter how weak the people of a country are. Technology is what decides victory in battle. America is top of the line when it comes to military technology. This is why we only lost a few hundred troops to Saddams hundreds of thousands in the initial front against him*. It is not because our troops are these elite killing machines. No, they are well equipped, and well trained to use that equipment.

The only way America will ever fall is if other countries who want us dead are able to figure out how to develop the things we have. But unfortunately, they don't know what we have (and neither does 99% of those living in America). So it's difficult to catch up when you aren't sure what you're trying to catch up to.

*for the idiots who lack reading comprehension, yes, I know we have lost 3000 troops total, but most of those were post occupation.

[Hartmann]

It does not matter how weak the people of a country are. Technology is what decides victory in battle. America is top of the line when it comes to military technology. This is why we only lost a few hundred troops to Saddams hundreds of thousands in the initial front against him*. It is not because our troops are these elite killing machines. No, they are well equipped, and well trained to use that equipment.

The only way America will ever fall is if other countries who want us dead are able to figure out how to develop the things we have. But unfortunately, they don't know what we have (and neither does 99% of those living in America). So it's difficult to catch up when you aren't sure what you're trying to catch up to.

*for the idiots who lack reading comprehension, yes, I know we have lost 3000 troops total, but most of those were post occupation.

Tactics had a lot to do with it as well.

Men have to man the technology and without them the technology is useless (unless of course "they" become self-aware).

[pebkac]

I just...what the?

I'm talking about Americans having more resolve and fortitude back then. I don't recall ever saying anything about "wanting to go to war". But when pushed, the didn't tippy-toe or be PC or political about it. They obviously banded together for the common good and took care of business.

That hasn't happened since...and we've only grown more PC and divided. Have we not?

You're probably right, but WWII is an exceptional case. It's a lot easier to unite a nation when facing the bloodiest war in human history with arguably one of the most charismatic leaders in our history than it is to unite them under a war in the middle of nowhere under a leader who has the people skills of a used condom.

[Seussninja]

and now we're just glad that Japan is our comic relief for the world.

Oh, Japan, is there anything you WONT turn into a sexual fantasy?

[FORSAKENR320]

and now we're just glad that Japan is our comic relief for the world.

Oh, Japan, is there anything you WONT turn into a sexual fantasy?

yes.



























YOU

[impala454]

live in your utopian 'americans are the end-all badasses' dreamworld...and I'll live in reality. I'm sure yours is much more palatable and cozy. I bet you sleep well.

modern-day americans* are pampered snots who would rather pick apart every little flaw a leader, decision, action makes, be interested in conspiracy theories, etc... than actually pull their boots up and endure the hardships to do what needs to be done.

this isn't a political party thing. this is an american thing. the reps talk out both sides of their mouths, led us into an ill-advised situation, and never fully committed to stomping a mudhole in anyone; whereas the dems just whined and poked at the policy, thus weakening us further, and now they have the motherloving GALL to suggest diplomacy AFTER we already created our enemies. and rest assured, the guys we are fighting right now are not the same guys who wanted us dead in 2001.

Diplomacy...FUCK YEAH!

americans today do not have the patience to wait for their hotpocket to finish nuking, nor do they have the stomach or fortitude to endure a battle of attrition. If we cannot deal with it in Iraq (where we've lost 3000 men over 3 years), HOW IN THE HELL can you justify that we'd be cool with the slaughterous nature of the big WWII battles? We couldn't...

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

*disclaimer...as with all things there are anomalies. there are still americans who are of the 'hardman' mindset and will, but definately not the popular majority...nor in the political corps.

you and hartmann don't get it here... you're calling the american population fat & lazy and unwilling to do hard work. what you don't seem to understand here is hard work of the past is obsolete. whereas my great grandfather may have had to do some physically difficult task on his WWII navy ship, now a computer and a machine do it. and you know where that computer & machine came from? the fat lazy americans sitting at computers all day.

wars aren't about who has the most men anymore, they're all about technology. and when it comes to technology our military forces are un-matched. i dunno how anyone would think otherwise. sure it'd be a tough war to invade NK or china, but I'm not talking about that I'm saying our mainland is essentially untouchable by conventional warfare.

[Hartmann]

you and hartmann don't get it here... you're calling the american population fat & lazy and unwilling to do hard work. what you don't seem to understand here is hard work of the past is obsolete. whereas my great grandfather may have had to do some physically difficult task on his WWII navy ship, now a computer and a machine do it. and you know where that computer & machine came from? the fat lazy americans sitting at computers all day.

wars aren't about who has the most men anymore, they're all about technology. and when it comes to technology our military forces are un-matched. i dunno how anyone would think otherwise. sure it'd be a tough war to invade NK or china, but I'm not talking about that I'm saying our mainland is essentially untouchable by conventional warfare.

Yes, technology wins it all, yet our troops turn to silly string to make sure it's safe to enter a room.

[GOB]

Yes, technology wins it all, yet our troops turn to silly string to make sure it's safe to enter a room.

which points out the problem of who the decision makers are. technology is key, yes, but when you've got morons in charge (or smart people making the wrong decisions, or both), you're no better than the other guy.

[The Fanatic]

I just...what the?

I'm talking about Americans having more resolve and fortitude back then. I don't recall ever saying anything about "wanting to go to war". But when pushed, the didn't tippy-toe or be PC or political about it. They obviously banded together for the common good and took care of business.

That hasn't happened since...and we've only grown more PC and divided. Have we not?

You have to keep in mind the nature of the war being fought. The united states was physically attacked by Japan when they entered world war 2 and the united states was just beginning to emerge from the depression. Of course everyone backed the war effort, it meant both jobs and patriotism. Wars like Iraq and Vietnam are different. There was no clear reason for entering these wars (in the case of Vietnam it was somewhat more clear but still a convoluted rationale for entering the war). Also, it is safe to say that America changed after Vietnam imo. The nature of war has changed. It is like comparing apples and oranges. I think if America was put in a truly dire situation, we would step up and fight the war. Then again, this is the age of apathy...

[Hartmann]

which points out the problem of who the decision makers are. technology is key, yes, but when you've got morons in charge (or smart people making the wrong decisions, or both), you're no better than the other guy.

I am not really sure it's about decision making, it's about U.S. troops seeing a problem that has no technological solution (or easy solution) and they innovated.

[impala454]

Yes, technology wins it all, yet our troops turn to silly string to make sure it's safe to enter a room.

and iraq isn't a conventional war on the american mainland, which is what i was talking about

[Timbo]

http://www.sflistteamhouse.com/Misc/Pearl%...or/original.htm

[jonathan83]

there's no way in hell the people who wish us dead are as fat and spoiled as we are.

you can't possibly make that argument.

being fat and spoiled isn't relevant. that just proves our economy is better... plus kinda lazy.

my point is that there are fewer jobs "out in the field" because it's just basic reality that machines are taking over certain jobs...and more jobs nowadays are with computers than hacking some axe.

[impala454]

well everyone used to be farmers & ranchers. now, one old over-subsidized asshole can drive a $300,000 machine the govt paid for to do the work of like 200 people in 1/10th the time.

[cupcake]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

[pebkac]

I used to have one of those actually. Made for pretty good party conversation.

[Billy]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

Get real. Technology wins wars. Period. No one is claiming technology is better than man...yet. However, men with technology, are stronger than men without.

[impala454]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

again, like i keep saying, i'm talking about defense of our country against conventional warfare. due to our overwhelming technology and firepower, i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

[cupcake]

i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

not in our lifetime. if we go down it will be from within.

edit...what I mean is all our infighting will weaken us. our PCness will run amuck. and they will exploit our graciousness, weakness, etc and infiltrate. albeit not by conventional means. hell they might even have a rad team of american attorneys. needless to say, it will be asymmetrical, just like everything post-Korea. ps...I would really like to see the technosavvy designed to fight guerilla warfare.

[Hartmann]

again, like i keep saying, i'm talking about defense of our country against conventional warfare. due to our overwhelming technology and firepower, i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

[Billy]

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

Your first statement is bullshit. They were never one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world. However, they were one of the largest in the world.

You attribute our victory to tactics. But what gave those commanders their tactical maps so they knew where the bases were, and what infrastructure to bomb? Satellites. And you know, missiles aren't exactly something everyone and their mother has either. And what else. Our yeah, I've only seen a few war videos of Iraq and one of those was where they basically shot up all these iraqs at night using night vision and from a very far distance away. These poors fool didn't ever have a chance. They couldn't see their enemy nor even know where they were getting killed from. Technology won it. Machines guns, tanks, aircraft. All technology. And it doesn't matter how tough your soldiers are, a hundred thousand poorly equipment troops will not take down a jet aircraft or a tank. Of course you need people to operate the machines. No one is claiming otherwise. But a carpenter with a nail gun can build much faster than one with only a hammer.

It is foolishly arrogant to think American soldiers are much more elite than other armies. What Americas are, is very well equipped. A man is nothing without his machine.

[Trespass]

Your first statement is bullshit. They were never one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world. However, they were one of the largest in the world.

You attribute our victory to tactics. But what gave those commanders their tactical maps so they knew where the bases were, and what infrastructure to bomb? Satellites. And you know, missiles aren't exactly something everyone and their mother has either. And what else. Our yeah, I've only seen a few war videos of Iraq and one of those was where they basically shot up all these iraqs at night using night vision and from a very far distance away. These poors fool didn't ever have a chance. They couldn't see their enemy nor even know where they were getting killed from. Technology won it. Machines guns, tanks, aircraft. All technology. And it doesn't matter how tough your soldiers are, a hundred thousand poorly equipment troops will not take down a jet aircraft or a tank. Of course you need people to operate the machines. No one is claiming otherwise. But a carpenter with a nail gun can build much faster than one with only a hammer.

It is foolishly arrogant to think American soldiers are much more elite than other armies. What Americas are, is very well equipped. A man is nothing without his machine.

Give the iraq army our Abram tanks, and give us their Soviet T-72 Battle tanks, and our soldiers would have still won the battles. Because of superior battlefield tactics and training. Your technology gives our soldiers increased ability to survive and win in battle, true, but its our soldiers better training that wins the day.

I think the point they are making is yes technology can help win the war, but if your enemy goes low-tech and goes to a battle of attrition technology can help, but the success depends on the soldiers, not the technology itself. Vietnam and somolia proved that simple soldiers with Aks could challenge the super power of America when the will wasn't behind the "technologically" superior army.

[Hartmann]

Your first statement is bullshit. They were never one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world. However, they were one of the largest in the world.

You attribute our victory to tactics. But what gave those commanders their tactical maps so they knew where the bases were, and what infrastructure to bomb? Satellites. And you know, missiles aren't exactly something everyone and their mother has either. And what else. Our yeah, I've only seen a few war videos of Iraq and one of those was where they basically shot up all these iraqs at night using night vision and from a very far distance away. These poors fool didn't ever have a chance. They couldn't see their enemy nor even know where they were getting killed from. Technology won it. Machines guns, tanks, aircraft. All technology. And it doesn't matter how tough your soldiers are, a hundred thousand poorly equipment troops will not take down a jet aircraft or a tank. Of course you need people to operate the machines. No one is claiming otherwise. But a carpenter with a nail gun can build much faster than one with only a hammer.

It is foolishly arrogant to think American soldiers are much more elite than other armies. What Americas are, is very well equipped. A man is nothing without his machine.

Yes, they were technologically advanced. I'm sorry they didn't have stealth aircraft but Saddam actually invested heavily in a lot of technology, Mig-29s can easily go up against anything in the U.S. arsenal.

I am not talking about the strategic bombing, I am talking about the full out assault on retreating forces that teetered very close to a war crime (first Gulf War). My uncle flew an A-10 in the Gulf War and talking to him is a very interesting conversation, more than once he came back to base with his plane in a miserable wreck. He has stories about fighter pilots going into a type of shock after landing because the amount of fire (accurate fire) that the Iraqis were able to put into the air.

Night vision wasn't some huge advantage in the Gulf War, just because CNN presented video that way at least... It was a big deal in Vietnam. Just like smart bombs, they had a big effect in the Gulf War but a lot of that was because you actually saw them being used, I mean, they were huge in Vietnam as well. I think that the initial tactical win in the first Gulf War was due to the crippling of their radar system, which as far as I know was attacked based on information gained by defectors, not by satellites, considering most of the stations sat next to hospitals.

Our technology has increased greatly, but I look at something like Korea or Vietnam and even the first Gulf War and really wonder if technology made it easier for us or just made us complacent.

[impala454]

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

dude, i don't know why i'm still responding. let me space out the sentence separately then on its own line.


I am not, repeat not talking about the difficulty in invading another country.

I am talking about our country's mainland being for all intents & purposes invincible to conventional attack. I.e. similar to the topic... the last time conventional attack touched our soil was 65 years ago (albeit a tiny island way off in the middle of the pacific).


to that end, with your example, can you say you think those iraqi mig-29s & mirage F-1s pose any threat to our mainland? or that some other country would even have the ability to reach our soil with so much as a rock? terrorism is about the only way our country will be attacked. and while terrorism sucks, it doesn't win a war. especially not in a country with as much shear land area and population as we have. the way the world is right now, you will never see in our lifetime see huge divisions of troops making landfall on our shores, or fleets of ships get anywhere near our waters, or enemy planes dropping bombs on our cities.

the last enemy of the united states to wage conventional war on our mainland was the confederates in 1865.


and on a sidenote, if iraq's army was so technologically advanced, why did they call our choppers & guns stuff like "steel bird of fire" and shit? and why were they surrendering in droves instead of using their "advanced" weaponry on us?

[Hartmann]

the last enemy of the united states to wage conventional war on our mainland was the confederates in 1865.
and on a sidenote, if iraq's army was so technologically advanced, why did they call our choppers & guns stuff like "steel bird of fire" and shit? and why were they surrendering in droves instead of using their "advanced" weaponry on us?

When you're promised reinforcements and they never show up, you'd surrender too.

The Apache is a fierce weapon and it'd scare the hell out of me too.

A simple proof that technology does not win a war or the invasion of your home turf, the Germans in WWII. Arguably the most advanced armed forces at the time, they were out fought on their home turf by better trained troops.

By logic of technology, Germany should have won the war and controlled all of Europe and North America, they had better planes, better tanks, better artillery, programmeable missiles, etc.

[Billy]

and on a sidenote, if iraq's army was so technologically advanced, why did they call our choppers & guns stuff like "steel bird of fire" and shit? and why were they surrendering in droves instead of using their "advanced" weaponry on us?

Because it's total nonsense. Iraq's technology did not on any level compare to the USA's. Once the little technology Saddam possessed was taken out, his military quickly fell.

I strongly feel companies like Boeing, Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, L3, Lockheed etc had as much to do with the USA's victory over Iraq as the Marine Corp.

[Billy]

When you're promised reinforcements and they never show up, you'd surrender too.

The Apache is a fierce weapon and it'd scare the hell out of me too.

A simple proof that technology does not win a war or the invasion of your home turf, the Germans in WWII. Arguably the most advanced armed forces at the time, they were out fought on their home turf by better trained troops.

By logic of technology, Germany should have won the war and controlled all of Europe and North America, they had better planes, better tanks, better artillery, programmeable missiles, etc.

Are you seriously trying to compare WW2 technology to what we have today? The technology gap of today is much different than that of 50 years ago.

[impala454]

By logic of technology, Germany should have won the war and controlled all of Europe and North America, they had better planes, better tanks, better artillery, programmeable missiles, etc.

ok... gimme a break... obviously you need technology and decent numbers. germany was vastly outnumbered in WW2. and their "superior" army never set foot on american soil did they?

i wasn't saying technology is the only reason our mainland is untouchable. it is the major determining factor though.

[Divergent Realit...]

ok... gimme a break... obviously you need technology and decent numbers. germany was vastly outnumbered in WW2. and their "superior" army never set foot on american soil did they?

i wasn't saying technology is the only reason our mainland is untouchable. it is the major determining factor though.

the über soldat was not enough!?!?

NOES.

on a side note, hitler is 4 degrees from kevin bacon.

[Hartmann]

ok... gimme a break... obviously you need technology and decent numbers. germany was vastly outnumbered in WW2. and their "superior" army never set foot on american soil did they?

i wasn't saying technology is the only reason our mainland is untouchable. it is the major determining factor though.

You aren't the one that stated technology is the only thing, that was Renegadepeon. Again, I was simply stating that the German Army had superior technology at the time and they could not defend their homeland, I wasn't trying to say we defended against them.

You said America could defend its homeland, I was just giving an example of a time when a country was technologically superior could not defend itself properly. The reason they lost you hit on the head, troop numbers, which is exactly what cupcake and I are trying to point out, Americans would not fight, especially in the way the Germans did, giving up their 15 year-old sons to fight for the Fatherland when defeat is obvious.

[Hartmann]

Are you seriously trying to compare WW2 technology to what we have today? The technology gap of today is much different than that of 50 years ago.

Where in my post do I compare the technology of then to the technology of today? I was making a comparison to similar situations, lots and lots of technology and not enough man power.

[impala454]

You aren't the one that stated technology is the only thing, that was Renegadepeon. Again, I was simply stating that the German Army had superior technology at the time and they could not defend their homeland, I wasn't trying to say we defended against them.

You said America could defend its homeland, I was just giving an example of a time when a country was technologically superior could not defend itself properly. The reason they lost you hit on the head, troop numbers, which is exactly what cupcake and I are trying to point out, Americans would not fight, especially in the way the Germans did, giving up their 15 year-old sons to fight for the Fatherland when defeat is obvious.

you're losing me here man. obviously germany lost ww2 due to their lack of numbers. how would this be the case in the US?

[Billy]

Where in my post do I compare the technology of then to the technology of today? I was making a comparison to similar situations, lots and lots of technology and not enough man power.

But it's a bad comparison because Germany's technology was not that much more advanced. Yes, they had guns that wouldn't jam, ships that could reach speeds no one else could do. The japanese had a fighter plane that was unmatched in agility (the spitfire). But they were not great enough differences. It's not like Germany had these ships and the rest of the world was still using the musket. Unlike now. Most of these countries use outdated soviet technology, whereas we continued to advance. Today, we can destroy nations from afar by bombing their infrastructure and military bases by firing missiles that travel 70+ miles. We know everything they do, their every move from eyes in space.

Iraq had 900,000 troops. We had 100,000. We won with fewer than a thousand casulties. Hmmm.

edit: And let's not forget what really ended world war 2: the nuclear bomb. A lot of countries were trying to develop this, and the country who got it first ended up winning.

[Hartmann]

you're losing me here man. obviously germany lost ww2 due to their lack of numbers. how would this be the case in the US?

U.S. Troops stationed in other countries that could not be recalled to the states to defend the country, not enough troop replacements, no draft, etc.

Cupcake's original point that Americans are not of the same caliber as the ones of WWII is what I am trying to make clear with the comparison.

[impala454]

U.S. Troops stationed in other countries that could not be recalled to the states to defend the country, not enough troop replacements, no draft, etc.

Cupcake's original point that Americans are not of the same caliber as the ones of WWII is what I am trying to make clear with the comparison.

ok that's great and all, but i think you've missed my subtle point of been trying to make.

1. who has the numbers & weaponry to invade our mainland
2. are they going to swim here?

edit: and if some conventional attack were to head towards the american mainland, do you really think we wouldn't recall every person necessary to defend ourselves?

[Hartmann]

But it's a bad comparison because Germany's technology was not that much more advanced. Yes, they had guns that wouldn't jam, ships that could reach speeds no one else could do. The japanese had a fighter plane that was unmatched in agility (the spitfire). But they were not great enough differences. It's not like Germany had these ships and the rest of the world was still using the musket. Unlike now. Most of these countries use outdated soviet technology, whereas we continued to advance. Today, we can destroy nations from afar by bombing their infrastructure and military bases by firing missiles that travel 70+ miles. We know everything they do, their every move from eyes in space.

Iraq had 900,000 troops. We had 100,000. We won with fewer than a thousand casulties. Hmmm.

edit: And let's not forget what really ended world war 2: the nuclear bomb. A lot of countries were trying to develop this, and the country who got it first ended up winning.

You aren't serious are you? Not that much more advanced? Germany had ballistic missile capability before the U.S. knew the word.

The Spitfire was British, you are referring to the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero. But I am not talking about the Japanese (they were still using bamboo for stuff).

I was talking about the Germans who invented the Fischer-Tropsch process to create synthetic fuel, jet power with swept wing aerodynamics and those cases the rest of the world was using "muskets". The British had a jet but it was slow as all get out and the Americans barely got their jet in the air by the time the war was over. Had Hitler been focused and not a psychopath he could have easily taken Britain by full assault.

The Germans bombed the hell out of the British, so that doesn't necessarily win anything, oh and they fired missiles that flew 70+ miles to land on residential areas.

Look at the Polish at the beginning of the war, or even the Russians (or the British), they were using outdated planes, tanks, and tactics. The Poles failed to hold their country but that was because they were completely overwhelmed. The Russians quickly mobilized their resources and moved production facilities east of the Urals and replaced their fabric covered aircraft with modernized ones.


Your point about Iraq is taken, but that goes back to a post I made earlier about the bombing campaign...

Oh, and yeah, we may have won the nuclear race, but look at who was on the team (Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc.). I wonder what would have happened had they stayed in Germany? Also, evidence was found after the war that the Germans were a few months away from a functional nuclear weapon.

Oh, and you know that really cool plane that's a giant wing (the B-2), yeah, the Germans had that 60 years ago:

[impala454]

You aren't serious are you? Not that much more advanced? Germany had ballistic missile capability before the U.S. knew the word.

uh, no. you're comparing what they had to ballistic missiles?

I was talking about the Germans who invented the Fischer-Tropsch process to create synthetic fuel, jet power with swept wing aerodynamics and those cases the rest of the world was using "muskets". The British had a jet but it was slow as all get out and the Americans barely got their jet in the air by the time the war was over. Had Hitler been focused and not a psychopath he could have easily taken Britain by full assault.

I suppose you're referring to the Meserschmitt Me 262, the first jet fighter, developed by germany. the illustrious difference this thing made was that it killed 150 allied aircraft in exchange for losing 100 me 262s. wow what a huge difference that made in the war... the american P51 mustang made a hell of a lot more difference, shooting down 5,000 enemy aircraft & destroying 4,100 more on the ground, in exchange for 840 P51s lost.

The Germans bombed the hell out of the British, so that doesn't necessarily win anything, oh and they fired missiles that flew 70+ miles to land on residential areas.

the blasted large bombs with jets on them in the general direction of london and just happened to hit it enough to set it on fire... i wouldn't exactly call that some dramatic technology, and it sure as hell wont help you defend yourself.

Oh, and yeah, we may have won the nuclear race, but look at who was on the team (Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc.). I wonder what would have happened had they stayed in Germany?

they'd have been cremated alive in a concentration camp

Also, evidence was found after the war that the Germans were a few months away from a functional nuclear weapon.

2nd place doesn't really count in that race then does it but if they'd had it, i guess superior technology would have made the difference now wouldn't it.

Oh, and you know that really cool plane that's a giant wing (the B-2), yeah, the Germans had that 60 years ago:

what the germans had was a design that didn't f'n work. the thing never flew a single mission. they proved impossible to control until we built the thing with computer avionics. the closest thing that actually flew before the B2 was the northrop american developed flying wing. but they scrapped it because the thing had a tendency to flip.

see, i think you're going too much off of germany's designs and plans, rather than their execution. designs are great and germany was definitely cutting edge, but blueprints don't kill. shoot that's probably one of the things that attracts scientists from all over the world to the US. we can afford to build new technologies that anyone dreams up.

[Hartmann]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation. The P-51 was a great aircraft, but I would chalk a lot of the kills up to the skill of pilots and the lack of skill on the German's part.

The tactic of P-51s (and P-47s) was to attack small groups of targets as a swarm, which definitely helped their shootdown numbers. But no argument, the P-51 was an awesome plane and having the opportunity to fly in a two seat version I've seen the power of the plane up close and personal, it's so easy on the controls. Personally, I'd love to find and restore one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW-190 I consider it the F-15 of WWII in the Luftwaffe.

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

Oppenheimer wasn't Jewish and though born in the states was actually encouraged to finish his schooling in Germany.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

[impala454]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation.

they also never built many of the things. so i suppose another obvious thing to add besides technology and numbers: intelligence among commanders, as well as ability to implement your technology for practical use

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

ok to quote your source:

The ancestor of all Cold War and modern day ballistic missiles, as well as the rockets used for space exploration, the V-2 could not win the war for Germany—it was too expensive, too complicated, too inaccurate, and its warhead was too small

so we conclude, great design, start of a new era, genius mind (which ended up in the good ol USA), but in the end a non-factor.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

the united states of today implements technology on a level un-matched by anyone else. we have equal to superior numbers on almost any possible threat that's out there, experienced leaders, and an isolated mainland. imho this is what makes us, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable to conventional attack.

[Trespass]

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

So the germans HAD better technology but couldn't implement/use it... i think you made our point, except you tried to cop out and try to say that "technology" is only when you use it efficiently... which who "uses" it... the well trained and funded military (which if you try to lump them into being part of "technology" then you are completely correct that technology wins the day)

And why do you keep talking about a conventional war on the mainland? Im not sure anyone talked about it, but you keep bringing it up. Japan attacked us the ONE time and the rest of the war was played out elsewhere (and that was a WORLD war).

If we got attacked (pearl harbor, etc) by another nation and our country faced another country like russia that could deal out massive deaths (which they could) our country would have a hard time stomaching it. Because Russia is not an iraq, they have weapons, and "technology" very comparable to ours... they didn't just go away after the cold war and stop making better and better stuff. They have subs that could go undetected and launch devestating attacks on our mainland and go back home unscathed. They could use modern missles to bring down jets in numbers, could basically fight us and make us bring the war to them if they wanted... THEN it would be about the soldiers and tactics again, not merely technology.

I think cupcake and hartman are trying to say that if a Russia attacked us, we wouldn't have a stomach to take them on and lose LOTS of american lives to do it.

Oh and if this didn't make much since towards the top im still waking up a bit.. heh, hopefully i got the points out coherently.

[John6.7]

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

What?
They had the technology but used it wrong and didn't want to give it to allies untill too late in the war.
plus everything trespass said.

[Trespass]

China sub stalked U.S. fleet

Russian Sub Games

couldn't find an article on a new russian sub popping up off our coast when we didn't think they existed yet but meh. Point being that even when the "technology" of the one side is weaker, they could still get massive blows in on our military, and "smart" bombs wouldn't end the war easily just because our bombs are "smarter". A ground war (or nuclear... scary) might be the ultimate solution required if the war was against another major power in the world.

[John6.7]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation. The P-51 was a great aircraft, but I would chalk a lot of the kills up to the skill of pilots and the lack of skill on the German's part.

The tactic of P-51s (and P-47s) was to attack small groups of targets as a swarm, which definitely helped their shootdown numbers. But no argument, the P-51 was an awesome plane and having the opportunity to fly in a two seat version I've seen the power of the plane up close and personal, it's so easy on the controls. Personally, I'd love to find and restore one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW-190 I consider it the F-15 of WWII in the Luftwaffe.

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

Oppenheimer wasn't Jewish and though born in the states was actually encouraged to finish his schooling in Germany.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

You know your stuff, my hat is off to you.

[Trespass]

You know your stuff, my hat is off to you.

ha ha i was actually wondering when you'd chime in when the german planes were brought up.

[John6.7]

ha ha i was actually wondering when you'd chime in when the german planes were brought up.

[impala454]

What?
They had the technology but used it wrong and didn't want to give it to allies untill too late in the war.
plus everything trespass said.

having a prototype design of something that flies and having a fleet of superior aircraft are two completely different things.

[Hartmann]

You know your stuff, my hat is off to you.

Thank you sir. If there is one thing that I can debate and debate well it is military and aviation history from WWII to modern day. I actually have that exact same model of the 262.

Why do you think my forum name is one of the greatest fighter pilots to ever live?

[Billy]

The question to be answered: What determines the outcome of a war more: technology or the toughness of the military?

I'm still going to say that ultimately technology is the biggest factor. As you'll never see some african tribe armed with spears take out one armed with AKs. However, in situations where technology are equal, then I agree, that is when the people matter. Having well trained, toughened troops will win the day. So having both is really a big plus. But I think right now, in this current age, our technological superiority is what makes us powerful. But when this gap lessens, and our brillant minds go elsewhere, then I agree, America should worry. Because we are becoming a slothful, undisciplined nation, where national pride is a "bad" thing. And when push comes to shove, I doubt we could band together to defend what's ours.

[impala454]

So the germans HAD better technology but couldn't implement/use it... i think you made our point, except you tried to cop out and try to say that "technology" is only when you use it efficiently... which who "uses" it... the well trained and funded military (which if you try to lump them into being part of "technology" then you are completely correct that technology wins the day)

well yeah who uses the technology is important, but i was referring to the practicality and use of a technology in war. the first jet fighter did the germans no good because they couldn't build the things in big enough numbers. the V2 did the germans no good because it didn't help them accomplish anything. the flying wing design did the germans no good because they never even used it. So basically as far as WWII comes down to it, the technology difference of the germans vs allied forces was negligible.

And why do you keep talking about a conventional war on the mainland? Im not sure anyone talked about it, but you keep bringing it up.

this is what pretty much spurred that talk:

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

If we got attacked (pearl harbor, etc) by another nation and our country faced another country like russia that could deal out massive deaths (which they could) our country would have a hard time stomaching it. Because Russia is not an iraq, they have weapons, and "technology" very comparable to ours... they didn't just go away after the cold war and stop making better and better stuff. They have subs that could go undetected and launch devestating attacks on our mainland and go back home unscathed. They could use modern missles to bring down jets in numbers, could basically fight us and make us bring the war to them if they wanted... THEN it would be about the soldiers and tactics again, not merely technology.

i think you over-estimate the abilities of the post-cold war era Russia. what's required to invade us is a very strong navy, which nobody comes close to matching us. check out this little tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces
and nobody will ever drop nukes on us in open war... it'd be suicide.

I think cupcake and hartman are trying to say that if a Russia attacked us, we wouldn't have a stomach to take them on and lose LOTS of american lives to do it.

yeah, and i think they highly underestimate our population's ability to kick some ass. not to mention our popluation has nearly doubled since WW2, people deal with increasing crime rates, murder, gangs, and private gun ownership is way up. i just read an estimate of privately owned guns at 215 million in 1999, and almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.

[cupcake]

But it's a bad comparison because Germany's technology was not that much more advanced. Yes, they had guns that wouldn't jam, ships that could reach speeds no one else could do. The japanese had a fighter plane that was unmatched in agility (the spitfire).

the Japanese Spitfire was the greatest fighter plane of WWII
-Renegadepeon

the BMW Corvette is the fastest production car on the market.
-Renegadepeon

[Billy]

the Japanese Spitfire was the greatest fighter plane of WWII
-Renegadepeon

the BMW Corvette is the fastest production car on the market.
-Renegadepeon

I was distracted when I typed that. I mean't the zero. Had I been able to proof read the argument I would have caught that error.

[cupcake]

Because we are becoming a slothful, undisciplined nation, where national pride is a "bad" thing. And when push comes to shove, I doubt we could band together to defend what's ours.

that's simply the point I was trying to make on page 1.

but God love techsans.net for running with this in every direction. makes for one hell of an interesting read.

[cupcake]

I was distracted when I typed that. I mean't the zero. Had I been able to proof read the argument I would have caught that error.

I know I'm just fuckin with you...

[Hartmann]

yeah, and i think they highly underestimate our population's ability to kick some ass. not to mention our popluation has nearly doubled since WW2, people deal with increasing crime rates, murder, gangs, and private gun ownership is way up. i just read an estimate of privately owned guns at 215 million in 1999, and almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.

2 things.

1. I don't think it takes a massive navy to invade a country anymore. Our forces here in the states are by no means what they were during the Cold War. Hell, more than half of the bases that were meant to supplement pushing back an invasion force have closed. Most air defense protection has fallen on the Air National Guard and they've definitely proven themselves in do or die situations (shoe bomber incident, took 'em I think 8 minutes to scramble, that's insane)

We do not have an missile defense system because most Americans don't want a SAM site setup down the street from their Malibu home. I think Russia still has some of its SAM sites setup around Moscow.

2. Your point about gun ownership is well taken, but how many of those people are willing to shoot to kill? And if they are willing to shoot to kill, how good of a shot are they. War isn't going to be a Red Dawn situation with teenage kids taking out convoys of tanks, I hate to break it to everyone but that was just a movie.

You must look at how are population has doubled and the age of that population. We are nearly turning the corner of being 50%+ of 50+ year olds. Yes, I'm sure all those folks with their arthritis and hemorrhoids would be a great defender of the U.S. And trying to get them up to speed on a computer? Uh huh. I like pipe dreams too.

Also, look at immigration as bringing in a lot of our population. Do you think the people who just came here are willing to fight to stay? Hell no. They'll run.

[Billy]

that's simply the point I was trying to make on page 1.

but God love techsans.net for running with this in every direction. makes for one hell of an interesting read.

My agreement came with conditions though.

[Hartmann]

that's simply the point I was trying to make on page 1.

but God love techsans.net for running with this in every direction. makes for one hell of an interesting read.

Didn't he just say in one sentence what I spent hours typing? ugh....

[cupcake]

i think you over-estimate the abilities of the post-cold war era Russia. what's required to invade us is a very strong navy, which nobody comes close to matching us. check out this little tidbit:

I don't foresee this happening in our lifetime, but if russia or china wanted to invade the US, they could.

aircraft carriers do not an invasion force make. for one, they have plenty of destroyers, naval gunfire to prep the beach. that's the way amphib assaults have been carried out since existence.

two, they wouldn't hit us in fuckin socal. they would more likely invade a southern country and march up. If I were running the show, I'd do a two front assault...mexico, and across the bering straight. at which point you set up your airbases and supply depots. then envelope america from the north and south and spearhead the middle, dividing the country in half, and taking over the gulf ports. they have more than enough ground forces and aircraft to make that happen.

at which point, it's back to attrition.

we should all play risk sometime lol

[Billy]

I would personally support manditory military service after high school for a couple of years. A kind of boot camp for all.

[cupcake]

would you really? I have mixed thoughts.

on one hand, it would be good for america. even just a two year stint as a pogue would make youth appreciate things.

but as a troop leader, I know how hard it is to motivate guys who sign up for the mil, and volunteer for and pass the indocs to get into a unit. I honestly cannot imagine motivating a draftee...

[impala454]

cupcake & hartmann:
so you honestly think if some other country decided to, they could load up their troops and set sail for america? you've got to be joking.

did you bother to look at the link i posted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces

AC = Aircraft carrier, C = Cruiser, D = destroyer, F = frigate

US -> 12 AC, 22 C, 48 D, 30 F, 2900 aircraft (AF website says more like 4000)

the only people who come anywhere near that:
China-> 0AC/0C/27D/34F 1,450 aircraft
Russia-> 1AC/7C/15D/11F 2,400 aircraft
UK-> 2AC/0C/8D/17F 480 aircraft
France-> 1AC/0C/12D/11F 330 aircraft
Japan-> 0AC/0C/45D/9F 357 aircraft

nobody even comes close.

Iran = laughable -> 0AC/0C/0D/3F 150
NK = also laughable -> 0AC/0C/ 0D/ 3F 592

sure they'd load up and set sail for america, and rest in peace at the bottom of the pacific

[impala454]

two, they wouldn't hit us in fuckin socal. they would more likely invade a southern country and march up. If I were running the show, I'd do a two front assault...mexico, and across the bering straight. at which point you set up your airbases and supply depots. then envelope america from the north and south and spearhead the middle, dividing the country in half, and taking over the gulf ports. they have more than enough ground forces and aircraft to make that happen.

and you seriously think we'd allow their ships to get anywhere near mexico?

and the bering straight? even if for some crazy reason they could actually land troops on this continent, yeah have fun rolling tanks through the rockies while we pick em off one by one.

[Billy]

cupcake & hartmann:
so you honestly think if some other country decided to, they could load up their troops and set sail for america? you've got to be joking.

did you bother to look at the link i posted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces

AC = Aircraft carrier, C = Cruiser, D = destroyer, F = frigate

US -> 12 AC, 22 C, 48 D, 30 F, 2900 aircraft (AF website says more like 4000)

the only people who come anywhere near that:
China-> 0AC/0C/27D/34F 1,450 aircraft
Russia-> 1AC/7C/15D/11F 2,400 aircraft
UK-> 2AC/0C/8D/17F 480 aircraft
France-> 1AC/0C/12D/11F 330 aircraft
Japan-> 0AC/0C/45D/9F 357 aircraft

nobody even comes close.

Iran = laughable -> 0AC/0C/0D/3F 150
NK = also laughable -> 0AC/0C/ 0D/ 3F 592

sure they'd load up and set sail for america, and rest in peace at the bottom of the pacific

I think what they're trying to say is that if these other countries had the firepower and technology we have then they would probably be able to take us down as the people in this country are too weak physically and mentally to withstand a war of attrition. And I think that's a pretty obvious "duh". But the hard part is getting to the point where it becomes a war of attrition. And I think that is where the confusion of the two sides comes from. Because I think everybody is right. I think they are right that america wouldn't win a war of attrition, and I think we are right in America probably won't ever have to face that kind of war in a very long time due to our technological and geographical advantage over these others.

[Hartmann]

and you seriously think we'd allow their ships to get anywhere near mexico?

and the bering straight? even if for some crazy reason they could actually land troops on this continent, yeah have fun rolling tanks through the rockies while we pick em off one by one.

The Bering Strait and Gulf of Mexico are not guarded by the Navy, they are patrolled occasionally by the Coast Guard. Yeah, that'll scare off some destroyers... "Sir, they have orange ships! The war is lost!". Also, the Coast Guard patrols usually no more than 50-75 miles from shore unless called upon.

[impala454]

The Bering Strait and Gulf of Mexico are not guarded by the Navy, they are patrolled occasionally by the Coast Guard. Yeah, that'll scare off some destroyers... "Sir, they have orange ships! The war is lost!". Also, the Coast Guard patrols usually no more than 50-75 miles from shore unless called upon.

dude you're smarter than you're leading on here... if any ship of any country we deem to be remotely an enemy left its harbor, we'd know about it long before they reached some coast guard ship. hell if we wanted to we could probably have a smart bomb sink the f'n thing within 5 minutes of the thing breaking into open ocean

[Hartmann]

dude you're smarter than you're leading on here... if any ship of any country we deem to be remotely an enemy left its harbor, we'd know about it long before they reached some coast guard ship.

Like you said, the Cold War is over... We do not track ships leaving harbor unless they are in a country that we are actively monitoring (Iran, North Korea, etc.)

[Billy]

Like you said, the Cold War is over... We do not track ships leaving harbor unless they are in a country that we are actively monitoring (Iran, North Korea, etc.)

Are you sure about that?

[impala454]

Like you said, the Cold War is over... We do not track ships leaving harbor unless they are in a country that we are actively monitoring (Iran, North Korea, etc.)

haha you've got to be shitting me. you're just on crack now.

[Billy]

haha you've got to be shitting me. you're just on crack now.

Why turn to that? This is how debate devolves into name calling and the whole discussion just becomes shit.

postcount ++

[impala454]

ok my bad i shouldn't have said it that way.

imho i'd bet we have the current location of just about any countries with a decent sized navy's ships.

[cupcake]

"Sir, they have orange ships! The war is lost!".

I laughed audibly at this.

impala, I read that link. I also read where they have plenty of destroyers and combined (china and russia) have plenty more aircraft. I say again...an aircraft carrier does not an invasion force make.

ACs are forward airbases. they dont invade anyone. they're support. mainly for use against isolated land(islands) where a land-based base is out of range. there is plenty of land around america to forge a base.

[impala454]

I laughed audibly at this.

impala, I read that link. I also read where they have plenty of destroyers and combined (china and russia) have plenty more aircraft. I say again...an aircraft carrier does not an invasion force make.

so destroyers do an invasion force make? you don't think we'd just sit and fire cruise missles & running stealth aircraft bombing runs, sinking their ships one by one until they turned the rest around?

[cupcake]

nevermind

[Hartmann]

Are you sure about that?

Fairly certain. The CIA and NSA do not concern themselves with ships leaving every port, they are too busy fighting the war on terror to know where everything is. This isn't the Cold War era with a well defined enemy, or a known threat. If we tracked everything that would mean we would mean we knew exactly where the Kursk went down instead of asking the Russians.

Don't get me wrong, ships leaving China, North Korea, and Iran are tracked heavily. But we do not monitor everything, everywhere around the world, no matter what "The Unit" tells you. U.S. intelligence still heavily relies on informants, just look at the careers section of the agencies, usually multilingual requirements and the desire to "live abroad".

Also, I am basing some of the above on what my friend who took a job with the CIA told me. Strangely enough, she writes satellite software and I hate her everyday for it.

Can you go back and address some of the things I brought up about gun control, our population etc.?

[Billy]

Gun ownership isn't going to help the population against a military. Like you said, a bunch of teenagers with guns aren't going to take out a tank convoy (which kind of agrees with technology wins here). So the question ultimately comes down to is could we fight an invading force using "terrorist" tactics until they left? I don't know. I think it would depend on who invaded really. If a european country tried to take over the USA I think there would be less support to defend the country than if a middle eastern or asian country tried to take over.

[cupcake]

I don't think anyone wants to take over america as it is.

I think it's more about bring us down. taking the wind out of our sails.

I don't think it's any more thought out than that. it's about knocking the king of the hill off the top...nothing more.

[Trespass]

The question to be answered: What determines the outcome of a war more: technology or the toughness of the military?

I'm still going to say that ultimately technology is the biggest factor. As you'll never see some african tribe armed with spears take out one armed with AKs. However, in situations where technology are equal, then I agree, that is when the people matter. Having well trained, toughened troops will win the day. So having both is really a big plus. But I think right now, in this current age, our technological superiority is what makes us powerful. But when this gap lessens, and our brillant minds go elsewhere, then I agree, America should worry. Because we are becoming a slothful, undisciplined nation, where national pride is a "bad" thing. And when push comes to shove, I doubt we could band together to defend what's ours.

Well since you are changing your answer to "factor" i will agree with you

yeah im like 2 pages late, whatever haha

[Trespass]

Impala you talk about how sophisticated and all knowing the american military machine is, but how would you explain how a russian sub got to our west coast and stalked ships in hawaii, cali, and washington. Or how about the chinese (verv inferior sub) popping up in torpedo range of one of those 12 aircraft carriers we have?

This is all theoritical of course. But i think that if ATTACKED (not neccessarily invaded) by a major force that could deal out major deaths, we'd back down (unlike in past) and seek "peace" instead of going to war.

If invaded i think we'd be able to fight back (since the enemy would be interupting our tv time and mcdonalds) and the lard asses would pick up their shotgun to fight back. How effective a hostile COUNTRY would stop a mobilized military force i can't really answer, but i think in the end, you can't control a country from half the world away... thus why we had a revolution in the first place. So we'd eventually win a battle of attrition.

[impala454]

Impala you talk about how sophisticated and all knowing the american military machine is, but how would you explain how a russian sub got to our west coast and stalked ships in hawaii, cali, and washington. Or how about the chinese (verv inferior sub) popping up in torpedo range of one of those 12 aircraft carriers we have?

why would i need to explain? that has nothing to do with my point. the point is that our land can not be invaded. now, unless one submarine can invade our homeland, your question has nothing to do with the point you're trying to counter.

If invaded i think we'd be able to fight back (since the enemy would be interupting our tv time and mcdonalds) and the lard asses would pick up their shotgun to fight back. How effective a hostile COUNTRY would stop a mobilized military force i can't really answer, but i think in the end, you can't control a country from half the world away... thus why we had a revolution in the first place. So we'd eventually win a battle of attrition.

totally agreed.

the united states is basically surrounded by an enormous moat that is the two biggest oceans on this earth.

guys lets see if we can all agree on this:

There is no country or combo of currently possible hostile countries that could successfully land significant troops in the US (except hawaii & possibly alaska) and attack with conventional warfare.