firstolalekan: [size=16pt]LETS GO DIER[/size].
[size=18pt]THIS IS WHAT HAV BEEN WAITING FOR[/size].
LET THEM ENGAGE THE U.S SO THAT IRAN CAN DEAL WITH DAT TINY ISRAEL.
[size=20pt]ISRAEL HAS BEEN HIDING UNDER U.S SKIRT TO MAKE MOUTH[/size].

First of all let me say.. You're a boko haramist.. 2nd of iran deal with ISRAEL Are you bleeping kidding me??

Michaeljones36:

The US does not rely on F - 15's. That's ridiculous. The US exports all the F - 16's in the world, it's not going to use weaker aircraft in its own fleet.

The US uses F - 18's (it has 500 of them).

A 4th gen jet is a 4th gen jet... Its the armaments that makes the difference.

bookface:
Let's be realistic bruv, there's hardly any military technology that Russia currently operates that cannot be duplicated or made better by the yanks within a year or two!

Having a faster ICBM or stronger missile defense is just like claiming "my bullet moves faster than yours", truth is it no longer matters. Americas strategy has moved from investing in military technology - that may only become subordinate once the other side comes up with something else - to building stronger alliance and global prompt response. In addition, the MAD doctrine remains in place. Develop nice ICBMs all you want, as long as the US of A has in its arsenal 15,000 kilton nuclear weapons mounted on stealthy submarines, your ICBMs wouldn't matter.

Also, as part of the MAD doctrine, there's a limit to which both sides can develop their missile technology. If either Russia or China gets too adventurous, US may consider putting anti ballistic missiles in space - it's not as if this hasn't been considered before.

America is the only country in this day and age that can declare war on any country and have its military in the battlefield within hours before the enemy has a chance to even prepare a missile launcher! Russia has only got one carrier in active service, US has got 10, each of them with super active stealthy falcons that can be taking out your missile defense radar within minutes before you even come to terms with what went wrong. Russia is currently shitting in its pants with NATO's advancement towards the east. If Ukraine and Georgia gets assigned a NATO status, Russia's military influence will be well subdued, it wouldn't matter how fast their ICBMs are.

Also I am not sure what you call superpowers by excluding UK and France and including the Chinese. The Chinese have military strength relies on the sheer number of its ground troops, but in terms of Air superiority, and naval strength, UK and France will beat the Chinese any day any time, individually, talk less of a joint action. China sucks at war! It's military strength is by numbers not technology! China can afford to put a million soldiers on the battlefield and lose 200,000 soldiers without batting an eye. Even Mongolia a small country has bullied China for ages. Britain and French may have lost their empire status, but no other country come close to fighting wars in history than these countries, putting them down against China is a big mistake.

For all the theoretical American propaganda in the east - the Iskander missile alone will negate NATO's advancement in the east... Everything is just to bully defenceless and little countries... Where was NATO when Russia's reservists and their weakest Army regiment pummelled Georgia George Bush ranted and the other NATO countries murmured, but nothing happened... They had to send Sarkozy to Moscow a few times to plead with Putin...

Why's NATO scared of direct confrontation is Syria Tell them to declare a no-fly zone there to save humanity and see if the Russians won't use their fighter jets for target practice... You know the Russians are in Tartus, right?? And they deployed a few Iskander missiles there to counter the less efficient American Patriot missiles...

America is more or less a paper tiger, to be honest... Let's all pray against a wider war - the US is too immature to take on countries with years of experience in fighting wars... The yanks just like claiming everyone's glory as theirs like they claimed World war 2... every sane person knows that the Russians won that war for Europe...

shy-mmex:

every sane person knows that the Russians won that war for Europe...

So true, i thought i was the only one who believed this.

The Russians could have probably taken on Germany alone after the defeat of the 6th army at stalingrad.

pleep: So true, i thought i was the only one who believed this.

They estimate that the russians could have probably taken on Germany alone after the defeat of the 6th army.

Everyone in Europe knows that - only the yanks indoctrinate their people with lies... Heck, the yanks joined the war towards the end when the Russians started pummelling the Nazis.. Russia saved Europe - even all pro-yank British historians have written loads of books about this...

The only substantial thing the yanks achieved was nuking hiroshima and nagasaki, and demoralising the highly motivated Japanese army...

@pleep (although it could apply to shymexx as well): Are you being sarcastic?

shy-mmex:


Everyone in Europe knows that - only the yanks indoctrinate their people with lies... Heck, the yanks joined the war towards the end when the Russians started pummelling the Nazis.. Russia saved Europe - even all pro-yank British historians have written loads of books about this...

The only substantial thing the yanks achieved was nuking hiroshima and nagasaki, and demoralising the highly motivated Japanese army...

So why exactly did the Yanks join the war and not limit their aggression to the Japs that attacked them?

Ihedinobi:

So why exactly did the Yanks join the war and not limit their aggression to the Japs that attacked them?

It was a tactical move to counter the soviets and stop communism from spreading to Western Europe... The yanks continued this straight away world war 2 - with the Korean war, Vietnam war, and the cold war... Everyone knows this...

Ihedinobi: @pleep (although it could apply to shymexx as well): Are you being sarcastic?

Not at all, after completely annihilating Hitlers 6th army (this army was supposed to defeat all of Russia) The Germans were a lame duck. The Soviet Union was able to move their industrial base into Siberia, free from enemy bombing and basically pump every ounce of their might into the front line.

After Stalingrad the Germans never won another battle on the eastern front.

The war ended at Stalingrad... America made the treaty come quicker but the Soviet Union defeated Germany.

shy-mmex:


For all the theoretical American propaganda in the east - the Iskander missile alone will negate NATO's advancement in the east... Everything is just to bully defenceless and little countries... Where was NATO when Russia's reservists and their weakest Army regiment pummelled Georgia George Bush ranted and the other NATO countries murmured, but nothing happened... They had to send Sarkozy to Moscow a few times to plead with Putin...

Why's NATO scared of direct confrontation is Syria Tell them to declare a no-fly zone there to save humanity and see if the Russians won't use their fighter jets for target practice... You know the Russians are in Tartus, right?? And they deployed a few Iskander missiles there to counter the less efficient American Patriot missiles...

America is more or less a paper tiger, to be honest... Let's all pray against a wider war - the US is too immature to take on countries with years of experience in fighting wars... The yanks just like claiming everyone's glory as theirs like they claimed World war 2... every sane person knows that the Russians won that war for Europe...

Some fights are not wise to pick not because one will lose but because one might cause far more damageaccepting it and even winning than by rejecting it. That's why foreign policy is such a fine balancing act. There's a lot more to consider in picking a fight or accepting one than whether or not one can win.

pleep: Not at all, after completely annihilating Hitlers 6th army (this army was supposed to defeat all of Russia) The Germans were a lame duck. The Soviet Union was able to move their industrial base into Siberia, free from enemy bombing and basically pump every ounce of their might into the front line.

After Stalingrad the Germans never won another battle on the eastern front.

Be that as it may...it's 2013 and Russia is still a 'developing nation'.

Japan, Germany, the US, and Western Europe seem to have come out of WWII on the actual winning side.

Ihedinobi:

So why exactly did the Yanks join the war and not limit their aggression to the Japs that attacked them?

Debt, The United States financed the British and French war efforts... And if they let the war run its full course that would have basically extend the great depression indefinitely.

shy-mmex:


For all the theoretical American propaganda in the east - the Iskander missile alone will negate NATO's advancement in the east... Everything is just to bully defenceless and little countries... Where was NATO when Russia's reservists and their weakest Army regiment pummelled Georgia George Bush ranted and the other NATO countries murmured, but nothing happened... They had to send Sarkozy to Moscow a few times to plead with Putin...

Why's NATO scared of direct confrontation is Syria Tell them to declare a no-fly zone there to save humanity and see if the Russians won't use their fighter jets for target practice... You know the Russians are in Tartus, right?? And they deployed a few Iskander missiles there to counter the less efficient American Patriot missiles...

America is more or less a paper tiger, to be honest... Let's all pray against a wider - the US is too immature to take on countries with years of experience in fighting wars... The yanks just like claiming everyone's glory as theirs like they claimed World war 2... every sane person knows that the Russians won that war for Europe...

Why's NATO scared of a direct military confrontation in Syria? Well Truth is, they aren't scared. Syria is not really in US's interest. The US government knows Syria is very fluid compared to Libya. The opposition is unorganized, and their are several factions all with different objectives. The US government also knows a military strike on Syria will prompt the need for occupational forces, an expensive, unrewarding process that may lead to a wider breakdown in the middle east.

If Turkey gets the nudge it wants from NATO and other Arab countries, it can itself declare a no fly zone on Syria without much US efforts.

NATO is a much much bigger force than Russia -like it or hate it. But a war with both sides will not be a conventional war, it will most likely be a nuclear war. More than 3/4 of the entire Russian population may die in such an event. Millions of Americans and Europeans will die as well, so nobody wins. So there's no reason for both Russia and NATO to engage in direct military conflict, they are both better off resolving their differences diplomatically. This is why Putin is afraid of Georgia joining NATO, because in effect it becomes immune from Russia.

Forget the Iskander missiles. If stealth fighters can take out your radars and launchers, your Iskander missiles are only as good as a chocolate teapot.

Michaeljones36:

Be that as it may...it's 2013 and Russia is still a 'developing nation'.

Japan, Germany, the US, and Western Europe seem to have come out of WWII on the actual winning side.

what kinda comment is this, Germany & japan on the winning side?

In the future...

India will be a military superpower
China will be a military superpower
Russia will be a military superpower
Europe will be a military superpower (the EU)
The US will be a military superpower
Brazil will be a military superpower (if they ever fully implement their nuclear weapons program)


The real question is...where is Africa on this list?

pleep: what kinda comment is this, Germany & japan on the winning side?

Yes, in 2013 Germany is the strongest economy in the EU, and Japan is the second largest economy in the world.

Compared to Russia...I'd say they won.

@pleep

I see. That's a part of history I didn't know. I do know though that the Soviet Union did what she could to stay out of the war, if I remember correctly, partly because she was concerned about Germany's might. I'm sure there were other concerns though.

However, I think that the turning of the tide had a lot to do with America's entry into the war. I mean that there was some change in the morale of the Allied Powers as a result. And the demoralization of the Japs came in handy, I'll warrant.

Ihedinobi: @pleep

I see. That's a part of history I didn't know. I do know though that the Soviet Union did what she could to stay out of the war, if I remember correctly, partly because she was concerned about Germany's might. I'm sure there were other concerns though.

However, I think that the turning of the tide had a lot to do with America's entry into the war. I mean that there was some change in the morale of the Allied Powers as a result. And the demoralization of the Japs came in handy, I'll warrant.

Over 23 million Russians died in World War II.

13.5% of the population of the Soviet Union.

It's hard to call anything after that a victory.

^ When you are defending yourself from a foreign invasion anything is a victory...

Do you know hitler planned to turn Russia into a huge farm for the master race? lol

bookface:
Why's NATO scared of a direct military confrontation in Syria? Well Truth is, they aren't scared. Syria is not really in US's interest. The US government knows Syria is very fluid compared to Libya. The opposition is unorganized, and their are several factions all with different objectives. The US government also knows a military strike on Syria will prompt the need for occupational forces, an expensive, unrewarding process that may lead to a wider breakdown in the middle east.

If Turkey gets the nudge it wants from NATO and other Arab countries, it can itself declare a no fly zone on Syria without much US efforts.

NATO is a much much bigger force than Russia -like it or hate it. But a war with both sides will not be a conventional war, it will most likely be a nuclear war. More than 3/4 of the entire Russian population may die in such an event. Millions of Americans and Europeans will die as well, so nobody wins. So there's no reason for both Russia and NATO to engage in direct military conflict, they are both better off resolving their differences diplomatically. This is why Putin is afraid of Georgia joining NATO, because in effect it becomes immune from Russia.

Forget the Iskander missiles. If stealth fighters can take out your radars and launchers, your Iskander missiles are only as good as a chocolate teapot.

You mean the same Syria that's part of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis that both the US and Israel have been trying to break for decades isn't in US' strategic interests anymore, no?? Loooool... The US just can't afford any type of confrontation with the Russians - FACT... When the Russians moved the Navy fleet opposite the yanks in the Mediterranean late last year, the yanks moved out of there...

Which stealth fighters?? - the F-22s with oxygen problems, or the grounded F-35s?? If the Serbs could shoot down American F117 stealth fighter with the obsolete SA-3s - what do you think s-300s, s-400s, and s-500s would do to them??

Michaeljones36:

Yes, in 2013 Germany is the strongest economy in the EU, and Japan is the second largest economy in the world.

Compared to Russia...I'd say they won.

Dude japan is a neutered satelite state that, based on their engenuity, should be the most advanced military in the world right now. Japan should be ordering China around, not siting up there making video games

As for germany, despite what the situation looks like now that was not a victory.... Do you call having your country divided in two and ruled by commies winning?

Calling that a victory is like saying the Europeans won the crusades because they are richer than the muslims now.

Ihedinobi:

Some fights are not wise to pick not because one will lose but because one might cause far more damageaccepting it and even winning than by rejecting it. That's why foreign policy is such a fine balancing act. There's a lot more to consider in picking a fight or accepting one than whether or not one can win.

I understand your point... However, I'm just trying to counter the posturing about the yanks being the best thing since slice bread... America has never taken on any superpower... Heck, it lost most of its war adventures after the world war 2 - lost in Korea, lost in Vietnam etc.. America is more or less a paper tiger to me until it proves itself against at least a 2nd rate country.... Bullying defenseless countries is just propaganda IMO...

The cold war is over, why is America still in the Korean peninsula?? Why can't the yanks look for ways to unite these two countries and let them live in peace?? Heck, they stay conducting military exercises there almost every 2 months - that's not the right thing to do, to be honest...

Honestly, I don't blame North Korea for standing up for itself - however, I don't agree with how NK is going about it...

pleep: Dude japan is a neutered satelite state that based on their engenuity should be the most advanced military in the world right now. Japan should be ordering China around, not siting up there making video games

As for germany, despite what the situation looks like now that was not a victory.... Do you call having your country divided in two and ruled by commies winning?

Calling that a victory is like saying the Europeans won the crusades because they are richer than the muslims now.

I wasn't talking militarily, I was talking about quality of life.

And yes, Europeans won the crusades because Christianity is dominate, rich, and powerful. While Jews rule the Holy Land protected by Christian governments.

Meanwhile in the middle east...Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century.

Note: I'm not making up the statistics about translated books either.
Link from the UN is here: http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2002e.pdf
Check out page 78, last paragraph.

shy-mmex:


It was a tactical move to counter the soviets and stop communism from spreading to Western Europe... The yanks continued this straight away world war 2 - with the Korean war, Vietnam war, and the cold war... Everyone knows this...

pleep: Debt, The United States financed the British and French war efforts... And if they let the war run its full course that would have basically extend the great depression indefinitely.

Shymexx, you wanna sort this out with pleep? I confess that you guys seem to know this stuff really well. So, I'm the student here.

However, do you think that the US waited till late in the war to join just because they saw an opportunity to fight the USSR? Not perhaps because she was attacked and thus pulled into a war she'd wanted to stay out of?

Pleep, that reason of yours assumes that America was certain of winning if she joined. Do you know certainly what the relative strengths of both sides were with all the players involved?

shy-mmex:


You mean the same Syria that's part of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis that both the US and Israel have been trying to break for decades isn't in US' strategic interests anymore, no?? Loooool... The US just can't afford any type of confrontation with the Russians - FACT... When the Russians moved the Navy fleet opposite the yanks in the Mediterranean late last year, the yanks moved out of there...

Which stealth fighters?? - the F-22s with oxygen problems, or the grounded F-35s?? If the Serbs could shoot down American F117 stealth fighter with the obsolete SA-3s - what do you think s-300s, s-400s, and s-500s would do to them??

Russia needs to hurry up and give Iran those S-400's so Isreal wont attack them and drag us into another war.

That being said the S-400 cannot beat stealth, so while those systems nutralize Isreal the B-2's can still operate freely against them.

Michaeljones36: In the future...

India will be a military superpower
China will be a military superpower
Russia will be a military superpower
Europe will be a military superpower (the EU)
The US will be a military superpower
Brazil will be a military superpower (if they ever fully implement their nuclear weapons program)


The real question is...where is Africa on this list?

Yeah, good question.

Ihedinobi:



Shymexx, you wanna sort this out with pleep? I confess that you guys seem to know this stuff really well. So, I'm the student here.

However, do you think that the US waited till late in the war to join just because they saw an opportunity to fight the USSR? Not perhaps because she was attacked and thus pulled into a war she'd wanted to stay out of?

Pleep, that reason of yours assumes that America was certain of winning if she joined. Do you know certainly what the relative strengths of both sides were with all the players involved?

As for the relative power of all the nations; the only strong allies were the U.S, U.K and the Soviet Union. The USSR was the strongest and the United States was well aware of this. General Paton (the head of the American army) even asked the president to spare the weakened Germany and attack the "mongoloid" Russians with nuclear weapons if need be.

The american government refused, and decided to concentrate on germany

By the time the war was over the Soviet military was much larger than Americas and it was clear that there would be a stand off between the two super-powers. When Russia got nukes, it became the cold war. I think the U.S should have attacked Russia when they had the chance.

America waited so long to enter the war because the public was not in support of it, The United States was actually trying to adopt isolationist policies after WW1, where billions of dollars in war debts were never repaid.

Ihedinobi: I doubt that I have the capacity to sympathize with NK. I pity her people for their misery but not the nation herself. And if she puts her money where her mouth is, she'll be dead at the end of the skirmish.

Also, I think the Chinese will be hurt badly by such an event and, like @bookface said, will indees try to prevent it, but it will cost them tremendously to do so if it all comes to blows. If Russia weighs in, so will pretty much everyone else and we'll have us a merry old royal rumble.

This does indeed have the capacity to trigger a third world war with fronts pretty much everywhere because the Chinese will be trying to maintain a buffer as has already been said in siding in with NK and Russia might be capitalizing on an opportunity if China is on full offensive with the US. The Middle East will simply explode without the American pressure valve if America is wrestling with two heavyweights unless Japan and South Korea prove equal to handling the Pacific front and I think that they will. Europe might throw her weight behind the US, in fact, I think she will and that should be a deterrent to Russia.

Unless everyone considers the cons, everyone will go to war. That's how I see it and if alliances can be trusted, NK will vanish from the map and Russia and China will be badly set back for years if not a full decade at least in development. The US won't suffer as badly as they two will but she definitely will. The world economy will take a very nasty hit too.

Still can't see much more than reverberations or ricochets in Africa who manages to always gain nothing from such events while suffering everything. Africa is like the poor kid that suffers when the adulta have killed themselves off.

NK would be a grand fool to really go to war with even SK alone. She's got no reason to fight except hate and, perhaps, jealousy. She can't say she's fighting to protect herself if she treats herself the way it is reported that she does. She might just want to force someone else to feel her pain or something. And her opponents will be fighting to preserve life which motive can make weak men do superhuman things.

while i believe that north korea is simply trying to threathen the U.S i doubt a 3rd world war won't affect the U. S that much. England will support the U. S but i doubt all europe will do same!! Russia will be in trouble since europe in in its south, the asian countries will help securing its pacific boder. U S on the otherhand has made interesting enemies in its south, those countries may not actively participate but they'll allow d enemies of the U. S to use them as lauching pads.
All in all, isreal will be isolated, asia will use the U. S base in the region for target practice, isreal's neighbour will team up and teach isreal a lesson. Pro russian american states will engage Pro american European states and russia will be pulling its weight to protect its allies. China, japan will protect d pacific fontiers and will have no problem joining to isolate U. S base in the area and attacking europe. Russia's main pre occupation will be the U. S, the atlantic frontier will be the battle field. Cuba, venezuela and co will serve as bases against the U S and d U S will take pleasure in crushing them. At the end i don't think the present world powers will still be world powers.

shy-mmex:


For all the theoretical American propaganda in the east - the Iskander missile alone will negate NATO's advancement in the east... Everything is just to bully defenceless and little countries... Where was NATO when Russia's reservists and their weakest Army regiment pummelled Georgia George Bush ranted and the other NATO countries murmured, but nothing happened... They had to send Sarkozy to Moscow a few times to plead with Putin...

Why's NATO scared of direct confrontation is Syria Tell them to declare a no-fly zone there to save humanity and see if the Russians won't use their fighter jets for target practice... You know the Russians are in Tartus, right?? And they deployed a few Iskander missiles there to counter the less efficient American Patriot missiles...

America is more or less a paper tiger, to be honest... Let's all pray against a wider war - the US is too immature to take on countries with years of experience in fighting wars... The yanks just like claiming everyone's glory as theirs like they claimed World war 2... every sane person knows that the Russians won that war for Europe...

and who say the japanese wouldnt have beaten the americans if not for the nukes. This time nukes will be matched with nukes

Ubenedictus: while i believe that north korea is simply trying to threathen the U.S i doubt a 3rd world war won't affect the U. S that much. England will support the U. S but i doubt all europe will do same!! Russia will be in trouble since europe in in its south, the asian countries will help securing its pacific boder. U S on the otherhand has made interesting enemies in its south, those countries may not actively participate but they'll allow d enemies of the U. S to use them as lauching pads.
All in all, isreal will be isolated, asia will use the U. S base in the region for target practice, isreal's neighbour will team up and teach isreal a lesson. Pro russian american states will engage Pro american European states and russia will be pulling its weight to protect its allies. China, japan will protect d pacific fontiers and will have no problem joining to isolate U. S base in the area and attacking europe. Russia's main pre occupation will be the U. S, the atlantic frontier will be the battle field. Cuba, venezuela and co will serve as bases against the U S and d U S will take pleasure in crushing them. At the end i don't think the present world powers will still be world powers.

South Korea and Japan are a stones throw away from Beijing. A couple of lobbed missiles and everyone would be in for a nightmare.
The Chinese hate Japan more than Africans hate the British. Much more.

Let's not forget the Phillipines is a strategically placed US ally...as well as Australia.

Alaska is practically touching Russia.

Nobody is getting close enough to Cuba during WWIII to use it as a launching pad for anything.
South America is too far away to matter.

Europe is not going to sit by and watch Russia attack the US. Europe has too much history with Soviet Russia, and communism, to risk them becoming ascendant and belligerent. Germany would be the first one advocating a full scale attack.

shy-mmex:

The cold war is over, why is America still in the Korean peninsula?? Why can't the yanks look for ways to unite these two countries and let them live in peace?? Heck, they stay conducting military exercises there almost every 2 months - that's not the right thing to do, to be honest...

Honestly, I don't blame North Korea for standing up for itself - however, I don't agree with how NK is going about it...

General Macarthur wanted to end the Korean war by attacking China with nukes. Aren't you glad they didn't?

America has its hands tied, if it act too aggressivly people like you will demonize it, if it act to passively people demonize it too