Why USA wins most wars

biko

Steoob

eh?

GBX

and its a graph showing what? :pac:

Vorsprung

Military spending I'm guessing.

minidazzler

The USA have only won 2 wars. WW1 and WW2, and they entered both late.

Vietnam - Lost
Korea - Neither won or Lost.
Iraq - Ongoing but unwinnable because there will always be people ready to die for Allah.
Afghan - Ditto.
Grenada wasn't really a war.
They had to win the Civil War, because they were both sides.
Somalia - Do they even have a government?
Desert Storm - Gave up too fast.


They don't really Win any wars.

Manic Moran

Perhaps the title should be 'why the US wins most battles.'

No amount of military spending can make up for political will. (Or, more accurately, political won't.) But the ability to call in three airstrikes and a battalion artillery TOT when most normal-thinking fighting men would use a hand grenade does tend to result in a rather positive result for the American soldier.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

"The idea of the superhero seems to me to stem from the American unwillingness to enter into any military situation without a massive tactical advantage.' -Alan Moore

What is that a graph of, btw?

biko

Yeah, not very good graph although it illustrates how much money goes into their military budget compared to other countries.

In dollars
USA 651,163,000,000 Population 300M
European Union 312,259,000,000 Population 500M
China 70,132,100,000 Population 1.3B
Russia 39,600,000,000 Population 140M
Ireland 1,300,000,000 Population 4M
Source

As you can see US spends twice as much as EU, which is much larger and almost 10 times that of China or about 20 times that of Russia.

Poccington

minidazzler wrote: »

The USA have only won 2 wars. WW1 and WW2, and they entered both late.

Vietnam - Lost
Korea - Neither won or Lost.
Iraq - Ongoing but unwinnable because there will always be people ready to die for Allah.
Afghan - Ditto.
Grenada wasn't really a war.
They had to win the Civil War, because they were both sides.
Somalia - Do they even have a government?
Desert Storm - Gave up too fast.


They don't really Win any wars.

Without getting too serious, the US didn't lose Vietnam militarily. They "won" the First Gulf War, they "won" in Grenada and they "won" the little bit of armed conflict in Somalia.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, they "won" in the traditional sense of "war" being 2 sides meeting on the battlefield but whether they'll win against the Insurgency is another thing. Although I feel Iraq is going relatively well compared to a few years ago and it's A'Stan that'll be harder to finish.

[Jackass]

Magnus wrote: »

Yeah, not very good graph although it illustrates how much money goes into their military budget compared to other countries.

In dollars
USA 651,163,000,000 Population 300M
European Union 312,259,000,000 Population 500M
China 70,132,100,000 Population 1.3B
Russia 39,600,000,000 Population 140M
Ireland 1,300,000,000 Population 4M
Source

As you can see US spends twice as much as EU, which is much larger and almost 10 times that of China or about 20 times that of Russia.

So we spend more money on our military, per capita, than China??

That's not good! How do we justify that kind of spending on a backup police and bus serivce?

Outrageous!

Victor

[Jackass] wrote: »

So we spend more money on our military, per capita, than China??

That's not good! How do we justify that kind of spending on a backup police and bus serivce?

Outrageous!

Soldiers in China cheap. Soldiers in Ireland expensive. [/Fr. Ted voice]

Merch

[Jackass] wrote: »

So we spend more money on our military, per capita, than China??

That's not good! How do we justify that kind of spending on a backup police and bus serivce?

Outrageous!

I was thinking we seem to be spending more per capita then Russia, probably still the second most heavily armed force in the world

Jason Mc

possibly our soldiers get better wages?

Merch

I'd say that is definitely true,

I for one am glad we are not spending more but wonder why we are even spending this much?

I am sure when people think wages they think, soldiers but I'd consider what the top brass and all the other people that do nothing in the defence forces are getting not just the privates

You can bet officers are getting way over the odds for what they do.

And if what we are spending is too much it is criminal to think how much is being wasted on military spending, the Yanks aren't winning in Afghanistan, I suggest they should have bought off the country, no war just say we' will run it but build roads and buy your opium crops instead of funding it down the road with police forces trying to catch the drugs and related crimes.

seamus

Jason Mc wrote: »

possibly our soldiers get better wages?

Probably a good part of it. China being communist, any food, heat and shelter provided to servicemen/women are probably counted as part of their wages.

I would also suggest that the figure reported by China and the actual figure are quite different as well as some creative classification of expenses - classifying research into nuclear weapons as scientific or educational spending, for example.

Collie D

minidazzler wrote: »

The USA have only won 2 wars. WW1 and WW2, and they entered both late.

Vietnam - Lost
Korea - Neither won or Lost.
Iraq - Ongoing but unwinnable because there will always be people ready to die for Allah.
Afghan - Ditto.
Grenada wasn't really a war.
They had to win the Civil War, because they were both sides.
Somalia - Do they even have a government?
Desert Storm - Gave up too fast.


They don't really Win any wars.

Pretty sure they won the War of Independence

Manic Moran

You can bet officers are getting way over the odds for what they do.

Out of interest, how much do you think officers get paid, and how much do you think they do?

Please feel free to compare work hours, conditions, responsibility, wages and benefits with other equivalent jobs in the civilian world.

NTM

rossie1977

Merch

Collie D wrote: »

Pretty sure they won the War of Independence

And the civil war:pac:

enda1

Collie D wrote: »

Pretty sure they won the War of Independence

Yeah somehow I think the war of independence was before the country, USA existed. I don't know why but...

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, how much do you think officers get paid, and how much do you think they do?

Please feel free to compare work hours, conditions, responsibility, wages and benefits with other equivalent jobs in the civilian world.

NTM

What do you mean?
I'm sure that information is available, work hours?? cant be any worse than the privates and nco's conditions cant be, err not like privates and ncos, responsibility? cmon for what???, you tow the line and pass it on, everyone is already doing that there so you have less hassle and more authority than civilian management, automatic promotion hmm then theres the pension, compare that to the civilian world, ehh if they want a civilian job go for it! anything else?? so are you just in the door? of your job that is???

Capt'n Midnight

The US spends more on military than everyone else put together if you exclude the UK who probably won't attack them given as how the US probably has the launch codes


US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?


BTW they don't like to reminded of what the Canadians did to Washington back in 1812

Karoma

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?

Probably something to do with being the cheapest means of supplying 2.5million personnel and deploying large equipment to their ~740 bases around the world + foightin' poirats!

Manic Moran

Merch wrote: »

What do you mean?
I'm sure that information is available, work hours?? cant be any worse than the privates and nco's

Usually is, actually. The stereotype of the British Officer in colonial times playing cricket whilst the privates slave away is far removed from the real world in a modern army where officers are often up before the troopers and in bed afterwards. It sure as hell isn't 8-5, Monday to Friday.

responsibility? cmon for what???,

You're joking, right?

Take a company commander, a Commandant in the Irish Army unless I'm missing my guess, a fairly respectable rank. With the great authority also comes the great responsibility, that of over a hundred lives, and people are likely to die even if he does his job correctly. Compare that to the average 30-year-old mid-level manager on the civilian side. He is responsible for everything that unit does or does not do, from the training plan which keeps the men alive and allows accomplishment of national goals, through keeping care of their career paths and families to enforcing discipline through methods which can include imprisonment and fines, options not available in the civilian world. In addition to the simple job description of soldiering, one is probably also going to play social worker, diplomat, civil advisor and any other such role as required when interfacing with local populations on foreign missions. He must be a combination of manager, technical expert and athlete, with the ability to make pretty rapid decisions under the slight stress of combat. And, oh, by the way, you're liable to go to places where people might shoot at you just for being there. Yeah, like that's all easier and less responsibility than the typical private-sector person of the same age.

so are you just in the door? of your job that is???

No, I've been in the workforce for a few years.

NTM

Lirange

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW they don't like to reminded of what the Canadians did to Washington back in 1812

Common misconception. Aggressively promoted by those uppity Canadians.

The troops that burned Washington were entirely composed of British regiments dispatched from France. Along with a smaller group of reinforcements from Bermuda. English speaking Canada was sparsely populated and the British troops there were needed at the garrisons to defend Upper Canada. Upper Canada = everything except Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Any engagements of British soldiers based in Canada with the Americans were limited to the Great Lakes region and upper NY state. Of course there's the other small technicality that Canada didn't exist just as Enda informs us that the USA didn't exist until after the War of Independence.

Overheal

What does that have to do with the topic at all though?

Overheal

I Think this is the real story here:



30 years later we are back up to Cold War levels of Military Spending worldwide.

As for who is spending more, it seems the biggest % increases have not been from the US



The US Defense budget has gone up, but more significantly due to war funding



I'm too tired to read the print but heres the link I found this all at:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

As for the Cold War, you'd probably find the US and Russia constantly tried to match eachother. But another article I found seems to suggest the real figures russia spent might never be found out, as they seemingly went to some great lengths to conceal how much they were actually spending on defense in the Cold War era:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Capt'n Midnight

Karoma wrote: »

Probably something to do with being the cheapest means of supplying 2.5million personnel and deploying large equipment to their ~740 bases around the world + foightin' poirats!

except they use commercial shipping and commercial airlines for a lot of it.

CCCP^

The US wins most wars because their against third world countries?

With the exception of Germany and Japan in the 2nd World War and Spain in the late 1800s or early 1900s, what other first world major power has the US fought against?

Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Korea. All third world countries. I don't think you can count Iraq as a war is usually defined as two opposing forces fighting against each other, not one side bombing the holy **** out of a retreating force and it's cities.

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Usually is, actually. The stereotype of the British Officer in colonial times playing cricket whilst the privates slave away is far removed from the real world in a modern army where officers are often up before the troopers and in bed afterwards. It sure as hell isn't 8-5, Monday to Friday.


You're joking, right?

Take a company commander, a Commandant in the Irish Army unless I'm missing my guess, a fairly respectable rank. With the great authority also comes the great responsibility, that of over a hundred lives, and people are likely to die even if he does his job correctly. Compare that to the average 30-year-old mid-level manager on the civilian side. He is responsible for everything that unit does or does not do, from the training plan which keeps the men alive and allows accomplishment of national goals, through keeping care of their career paths and families to enforcing discipline through methods which can include imprisonment and fines, options not available in the civilian world. In addition to the simple job description of soldiering, one is probably also going to play social worker, diplomat, civil advisor and any other such role as required when interfacing with local populations on foreign missions. He must be a combination of manager, technical expert and athlete, with the ability to make pretty rapid decisions under the slight stress of combat. And, oh, by the way, you're liable to go to places where people might shoot at you just for being there. Yeah, like that's all easier and less responsibility than the typical private-sector person of the same age.



No, I've been in the workforce for a few years.

NTM

So you were an officer and what?? is that it you're offended
If you said you were in the British Army I would say you might have a leg to stand on as they actually fight real wars, wether I agree with them or not.
Social worker?? are you insane in what way to who? what army were you in? honestly if you were not in the Irish army I will take back what I am saying.
Technical expert in what?
Orders are handed down thats all there is to it,
There is no pressure like you are suggesting compared to a Multinational Corporation, if thats the case what job did you end up in because I can tell you its mostly a lot worse.
If there was a chance you or whoever was concerned you were going to be shot at, I never understand why people roll that one out, well why join?? wasn't that obvious that it might happen.

It used to be that officers got the position on the basis of either who they knew or that they were from a more well to do background and therefore had a higher educational background.
I know of a few privates that have Phd's some that have masters and many that have degrees. Promotions aren't given out for that kind of thing in the PDF, Officers are given automatic promotion though, compared to what a private, or corporal has to do to what a Lieutenant or captain has to do???
Your suggestion that officers have to do everything for the ranks beneath them may is dated, privates have limited interaction with officers and everything in anything to do The PDF is backwards, it is hole to put money into.
They may be spending more money and to some extent its necessary, I think there are better uses for it.
But it it is only ever about towing the line.

Merch

CCCP^ wrote: »

The US wins most wars because their against third world countries?

With the exception of Germany and Japan in the 2nd World War and Spain in the late 1800s or early 1900s, what other first world major power has the US fought against?

Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Korea. All third world countries. I don't think you can count Iraq as a war is usually defined as two opposing forces fighting against each other, not one side bombing the holy **** out of a retreating force and it's cities.

Germany was defeated by Russia, for the most part, with unacknowledged material aid from the US, the first encounters the US army had with the germans were in north africa and they were trounced. Not that thats an offence the Germans were experienced Ultimately it was airpower and their ability to diminish their access to resources and replenish them that defeated the germans and gave the Western fromt the advantage it needed, plus the Soviets had a greater number of available recruits.
and the US army soldiers had little or no combat experience.

Japan never had a chance in that war no matter what the history may say, initially they had advantages but they were gone very soon in the war. Aircraft production capabilities on its own saw to that. Having deciphered their naval code before the war, well that would suggest things that open more cans. It was brutal and merciless but the chances they would ever have won, it was never going to happen.

Spain was a former colonial power on its last legs

All those other countries, not a chance.
But if you push your weight around long enough someone will get you.