You don’t need a huge Military to defeat lesser powerful nations, and should a confrontation happen between the US and China/Russia Nuclear Weapons would be used far far sooner then a huge Military could be effectively used, and those Nuclear Weapons would end things quite quickly anyway, so what the hell is the point?
Posted in military weapons
Why Weapons Aren't Enough to Keep Your Family Safe? Read More...
Which is the most effective home defense weapon for a home invasion:
Click Here
to learn about the pro's and con's of each as well as the biggest mistake all the "heavy artillery" guys make when choosing "terminator ammo"!
(Hint: It has nothing to do with "stopping power" but it's nearly as important to your family that you get this right! Not doing so could cost you a lifetime of grieving that no law-abiding family should suffer...EVER!) Read More...
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
With over half of our military bases closed since WWII and a lot of the jobs the armed services used to perform have been farmed out to civilian agencies our military isn’t as HUGE as it once was. It is supposed to be a deterrent.
Suppose we had a small military and several countries allied against us. We wouldn’t have a chance especially with a multi-front campaign.
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Well. When you have more than just one, two or five different countries who hate you…you need to be prepared to take them all on at the same time.
-EMBRACE
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7352
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Hello there
I am the surfer!
Several points are to be made:
1.First the title of your question begs an incorrect title MASSIVE in this scenario size does not count!
examples : little israel had defeated every of her enemies
little germany defeated russia during world war one
little japan defeated russia by 1905
finland put to a stop the soviet invasion of 1940 the winter war the first round the second was soviet payback
the MASSIVE soviets were defeated by the afghans
little vietnam defeated the us
little spain conquered huge latin america
little portugal had huge brazil
little poland stop the soviet invasion of 1924
little england stood alone vs Luftwaffe
little malta stood alone against the axis during world war 2
HISTORY IS DEVOTED WITH MANY EXAMPLES ABOUT SIZE, SIZE DOES NOT MATTER WAR IS THE CORRECT MANAGEMENT OF BRUTE FORCE
2.) The purpose of the us military is like any other military DETERRENCE
3.) With a huge armed forces the us could engage in multi front campaign like world war 2 pacific and europe and today iraq and afghanistan
4.) The ruler of the oceans is the ruler of the world! earth is 7/10 of water is should be called aqua instead! look at england the old days with a navy to rule the oceans, spain was a great naval power too! the vikings! russia or soviet union were a great land power, you could reply that soviet union got a large navy, yes but even so they did not have aircraft carriers with great naval aviation to project power far away, most of the conquered territories the soviets conquered were with out direct confrontation with usa like africa, eastern europe , look after the cuban missile crisis, the us navy was able to make a blockade because there was no soviet aircraft carriers to oppose the us navy!
5.) To project credibility among allies: the us was leader during gulf war
3/5 bombs, missiles and planes were from usa during the campaign against milosevic!
6) A MASSIVE armed force to send the message across the globe THE USA IS WORLD LEADER PERIOD.! WE PROJECT POWER WORLD WIDE NO ARGUMENTS!
7.) To reduce the number of potential enemies
8.) History: since 1812 nobody is superior to usa when it comes about military industrial output
9.) Jobs and economy!
10.) Military technology influences civilian technology the internet was needed to link a massive armed force, internet got origin from the massive us armed fores ( check after arpa net a communications network of the pentagon by the 60´s the father of internet!) commercial satellites are a derivative of military satellites
11.) Missile defense a large armed force needs an umbrella!
12.) A large massive armed force is needed the us barks and bites, not just barks!
13.) There could be no leadership with a little force!
From the surfer!
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
well the point is to use the massive military force as your main weapon. yea we got nukes but we want to hold off useing them for quite some time b/c once u hit that botton! BOOM theres world war 3
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
errr … the point is to scare your neighbours like Canada and Mexico while on the other side reducing domestic unemployment?
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
We need a military contingent capable of turning aside massive military threats. Don’t forget that less powerful nations historically ally themselves with other nations against a common enemy. Nuclear weapons would not be used, because every nation understands that first use would guarantee a massive counter-stroke – one so massive as to completely annihilate the aggressor. It’s a principle developed in the 1950s called "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "MAD". Not even the fanatical North Koreans would be that stupid!
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
The point of a massive force is primarily two-fold:
1. Deterrence
2. Capability
Deterrence is actually one of the more important aspects because it makes any potential enemy think twice before trying to attack. This is–essentially–the point behind "Mutually Assured Destruction".
Capability is what the force does when it actually comes to a fight. This is more than numbers. Take a look at the numbers during the initial battles of the first Gulf War. The US and coalition forces were massively outnumbered by the Iraqis. The capabilities were different though and the coalition forces came out ahead. Even after the Clinton-era draw-down on US forces, the smaller number of US troops were able to manage an initial victory in the second Gulf War.
One of the factors in capability is tactics and strategy. Some tactics and strategies require more troops than others. Look at the current issues in Iraq. The US tactics of trying to patrol the cities and attack the insurgents only when they identify themselves requires more troops to be effective than simply hanging outside the cities and lobbing rounds in until the violence stops (a French and Russian post-WWII tactic, BTW.)
In this case, the amount of troops and hardware is larger when trying to limit civilian casualties than when simply trying to kill the insurgents.
Then again, go look up what the Russians did in Chechnya and you’ll see the consequences of simply trying to kill the insurgents.
August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
We might want to kick some massive arse someday and need to be ready. Nukes won’t solve everything.