RichDad1:

Behind the enemies lines
We are soldiers
Black Hawk down

jossey94:

Well, d way I see it, we v d numbers, countries lyk RSA and Egypt v d technology. If we all pooled resources, we cud present a unified front that would at least hold off attackers. Its js about seeming threatening to attackers. We're develpoing nuclear plants, y'know.
Js kidding sha. Know we'll b eaten alive.

krattoss:
abeg which warlike movi can i watch?...............watched war of the worlds, battle of earth e t c... But i need better warlike movie not aliens .

Rilwayne001:

U no sabi english

Rilwayne001:

U no sabi english

Shymm3x:


Lol. I think you're overrating the effects of fighting weak nations on combat readiness. Using football analogy: that's more or less like saying cos Brazil hasn't lost any game against minnows in the last 12 games or so after the world cup - this Brazilian squad is as balanced/competitive as the German, or even the Belgian team. The only thing you achieve while fighting minnows is to test the impact of new weapons but you don't get the necessary test for combat. The big guns are a different kettle of fish entirely and you won't know what it's like till you get into the "ring" with them. I also believe that's why a few heads in the Pentagon always get carried away sometimes and they tend to underestimate a lot of countries like what happened during the Georgian war and the utter shock of the swift and near perfect Russian response - despite all the money, equipment, and military personnel they rinsed there. Ditto the on-going Ukrainian crisis - and how the Russians took them by surprise with the perfect tactical/strategic capture of Crimea without firing a single bullet. Israel with all its noise and bullying of the Palestinians got its arse handed to it by the well-trained Hezbollah troops in 2006.

Big countries won't fight asymmetrically - it's going to be a conventionally war, with all cards on the table, and hopefully, without nukes. Advanced tactical strategy is the name of the game - and the morale/fortitude of the troops would be highly important. However, US soldiers aren't the most mentally tough out there, and they've an habit of breaking down when they face adversity - that's an open secret. Also, the US conventional war doctrine is based mostly on air superiority and air cover for the troops - once you take that away, how'll they be able to hack it against troops whose mentality is death before breaking and who dares, wins? And best believe all those military bases and whatever advantage the yanks have in reach would be targeted all over the planet with ICBMs as soon as it kicks off - and the field is going to level up faster than you think.

Don't talk about the US marines - they're average at best. They can't even compete with British Army and Royal Marines, or any of the regular European forces. Everyone knows that and it's evident in all NATO exercises. As for Delta Force, Green Brets, and Navy SEALs - they're all just one under different banners - just normal Special Forces like every other country has, but two are just less efficient than the SEALs. That's like SBS and SAS in the UK. In a real war situation - I don't even think NATO can defeat Russia (the new Russia) in continental Europe and most military analysts will tell you that. And if the US and China were to go at it in the Pacific - I won't be on anyone. But if it were to start dragging, I'd give the Chinese the upper-hand. However, if it becomes a global things - then the permutation would change depending on how balanced the allies on either side are. Also, during war time - money would be available to everyone cos that's how banks make their money. And all these countries have more than enough raw materials to build whatever they want in abundance, to build to keep fighting the war for at least a decade or more.

You lot read too much yank sabre-rattling - wars and capabilities aren't televised on TV by MSM nor are they scripted in Hollywood. When you see folks like Henry Kissinger begging the war hawks in Pentagon for caution, you should know it's deeper than rap.

NiftyViva:


So na u sabi English!

So na u sabi English!

Of course.

Had it been you sabi english, you wouldn't have ask me earlier on the meaning of 'pure lie' and at the same time talking about 'diluted lie'. All na simple/straightfoward english.

Do you want me to be your tutor?

Shymm3x:


Lol. I think you're overrating the effects of fighting weak nations on combat readiness. Using football analogy: that's more or less like saying cos Brazil hasn't lost any game against minnows in the last 12 games or so after the world cup - this Brazilian squad is as balanced/competitive as the German, or even the Belgian team. The only thing you achieve while fighting minnows is to test the impact of new weapons but you don't get the necessary test for combat. The big guns are a different kettle of fish entirely and you won't know what it's like till you get into the "ring" with them. I also believe that's why a few heads in the Pentagon always get carried away sometimes and they tend to underestimate a lot of countries like what happened during the Georgian war and the utter shock of the swift and near perfect Russian response - despite all the money, equipment, and military personnel they rinsed there. Ditto the on-going Ukrainian crisis - and how the Russians took them by surprise with the perfect tactical/strategic capture of Crimea without firing a single bullet. Israel with all its noise and bullying of the Palestinians got its arse handed to it by the well-trained Hezbollah troops in 2006.

Big countries won't fight asymmetrically - it's going to be a conventionally war, with all cards on the table, and hopefully, without nukes. Advanced tactical strategy is the name of the game - and the morale/fortitude of the troops would be highly important. However, US soldiers aren't the most mentally tough out there, and they've an habit of breaking down when they face adversity - that's an open secret. Also, the US conventional war doctrine is based mostly on air superiority and air cover for the troops - once you take that away, how'll they be able to hack it against troops whose mentality is death before breaking and who dares, wins? And best believe all those military bases and whatever advantage the yanks have in reach would be targeted all over the planet with ICBMs as soon as it kicks off - and the field is going to level up faster than you think.

Don't talk about the US marines - they're average at best. They can't even compete with British Army and Royal Marines, or any of the regular European forces. Everyone knows that and it's evident in all NATO exercises. As for Delta Force, Green Brets, and Navy SEALs - they're all just one under different banners - just normal Special Forces like every other country has, but two are just less efficient than the SEALs. That's like SBS and SAS in the UK. In a real war situation - I don't even think NATO can defeat Russia (the new Russia) in continental Europe and most military analysts will tell you that. And if the US and China were to go at it in the Pacific - I won't be on anyone. But if it were to start dragging, I'd give the Chinese the upper-hand. However, if it becomes a global things - then the permutation would change depending on how balanced the allies on either side are. Also, during war time - money would be available to everyone cos that's how banks make their money. And all these countries have more than enough raw materials to build whatever they want in abundance, to build to keep fighting the war for at least a decade or more.

You lot read too much yank sabre-rattling - wars and capabilities aren't televised on TV by MSM nor are they scripted in Hollywood. When you see folks like Henry Kissinger begging the war hawks in Pentagon for caution, you should know it's deeper than rap.

PabloAfricanus:


LOL.
Nice analysis...but still falls short on the real parameters that matter.
I see you rooting for the underdogs...romantic but not enough to win a 21st century war.
Almost anyone who has endured the shenanigans of the US would love to see their a.sses kicked by the Russkies or Chinks.
You know...just for the emotional jerkoff effect.
Let me list a few reasons why the US still trumps the rest.
Let's start with the most important reason.

Finance. The US literally has unlimited access to credit. This is the premise for any US-involved war in the first place.
The dollar is printed by the US free of charge and all the nations have to struggle to sell to the yanks for the precious greenbacks.
The bedrock of any economy today is the dollar reserves...which the Fed can print at will.
In a war situation, nations with the resources needed by the US will accept dollar payments before yuan or roubles.
Nations needed as allies can always be bribed with any required dollar amount.
Why? Because confidence in US credit and therefore the dollar is unmatched.
Even the entire Euro region does not have that capability.
With the current global financial setup, the US can comfortably afford to fund multiple wars in different theaters without breaking a sweat.
Sure their economy will take a hit if they press the pedal on the printing presses, but the global market's hunger for dollars is so much that
any excess dollars in the market ARE GUARANTEED to be soaked up pretty quick.

Infact, the US strategic planners have China already cornered. Why?
China hold's the largest chunk of American debt. They're struggling feverishly to actually unload the excess dollars they have
accumulated buying Fed treasuries and bonds. It's actually a dilemma for China because on one hand having a huge reserve of dollars
gives them access to almost any market...they just have to flash the greenbacks.
On the other hand, their global usage of the Federal Reserve Notes leaves them absolutely tied to America's apron strings.
Their economic output, global investments, interest rates and central bank policies are effectively controlled from Wall Street.
Any slight twitch in the values of Fed treasuries will hit them directly in the balls.
So China cannot afford to go to war with the US. Their horde of dollars and Fed bonds will become toilet paper.

As for Russia, they've been cornered since Gorbachev handed over what was left of Soviet Russia to the Jewish oligarchs.
They too are largely dependent on dollar reserves.
Russian billionaires hold more dollar assets than rouble assets.
How many countries want to buy Russian bonds compared to the hot Fed treasuries?
If they try to get funky with the US, their assets will just be frozen pronto. Already happened in Europe this week, check the news.

US financial control is even more pronounced because China & Russia do not have any counter to the global banking network controlled from Wall Street.
Heard they're already building new yuan/rouble credit card networks for bilateral trade, but how many countries will use those?
Which countries will abandon the relatively safe London-Paris-NY network for some new fangled setup?
How will they pay allied countries for needed resources in war time?
Gold and silver hordes? Suicidal and unsustainable.
If you are counting on the new Silk Road networks, remember how NATO blocked the pipelines Russia was already building through
Eastern Europe? The whole Ukraine debacle was clearly a ploy to counter Russia being the long term supplier of gas to Europe.
And the counter worked. Incase you are not aware the Silk Road networks are already being financed using dollars.US wins heads or tails.

Why I agree the next war will be an orchestrated game between the great powers...is because almost all the powers that be...with the
exception of Britain, are allowed access to the global financial markets at the whim of the US. Beat that.
Its in their best interest to maintain the status quo in exchange for a compromise here and there.

Next is combat experience.
You seem to imagine all the US engagements since Vietnam have been child's play.
Are you aware it has been rumored the US actually used Desert Storm as a cover to test new nuclear weapons?
Check out the effects of depleted uranium (DU) on both American soldiers and Iraqi citizens after Desert Storm.
Do you have any idea of the number of both experimental and production aircraft, armament and military doctrines
the US has been able to effectively test in all the war theaters they've been involved in for the past 40 years?
The US has retired 3gen, 4gen fighters alone on foreign engagements since WW2!
Their 4gen and 5gen fighters routinely go for surveillance missions undetected over Russian and Chinese airspace.
The US clearly has superior fighting gear and tools..on land, air, sea and space...unmatched and unparalleled.
Their force projection capabilities is so sophisticated that even their military bases...contrary to what you postulated...
are mostly full command and control centres. Fully equipped for both conventional and asymmetric warfare.
Care to understand why they were able to chased Russia out of Afghanistan and made them watch while they caged Iran, Iraq
and Pakistan? Ever wondered what Vietnam was all about?
They made Russia watch while they knifed their allies, canceled their already inked trade agreements
and pissed on their whole geopolitics. Beat that.

Bravado does not win modern wars bro. Superior thinking, superior weapons and superior abilities trump all other cards.
When you have over 3 generations of hard boiled soldiers who ACTUALLY get deployed to foreign countries and experience live COMBAT,
you can't compare that to soldiers who are largely dependent of war college training and simulated drills.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE...and the gap is huge.
These are soldiers trained not just in accurate shooting but in the operation of highly sophisticated military gear.
And the US military doctrine if you've bothered to peruse it...is beyond brain washing. You are shown and given proof
of your own invincibility as a US soldier. Those mofos are trained to dominate!
If you consider the Marines as average, bear in mind the TOTAL number of special forces divisions the US has.
Including the ones the public has no idea of!
How do you even begin to engage a combination of SEALS, Delta Force, Marines, Green Berets,
paratroopers and numerous special forces units of the US military?
You've not even included regular army infantry units or navy assault units.
To further buttress the above point, how many US soldiers have been brought back home in coffins compared to Russia and China?
Say over the past 40 years? Do the body count and then tell me they died from friendly fire.

Finally, maybe you've not realized it, the US is an empire.
The biggest empire in world history. Great Britain effectively were eclipsed after WW1.
In terms of economic output, financial strength, intellectual prowess and military might...the US is simply unparalleled.
The next war will be a war of imperial proportions and you seem to imagine Russia or China can engage asymmetrically with America.
The US is the new Rome and all pretenders will have it rough on any chosen theater.
Bar any playing of the nuclear card, Russia and China will be bested eventually. They will be dragged and exhausted.
China's mammoth army or reliance on ancient military tricks cannot best superior abilities ALREADY possessed by the US.
Russia's superior military industry cannot win any war fought on Russia soil. They will put up a good defense, but will be exhausted
finally. They cant finance a global engagement with the US. Same goes for China.
For each modern fighting gear they field, the US can field atleast 20 more.
For each motivated soldier they can field, the US have a more indoctrinated fighting force whose default mindset is in the
infallibility of the US.
When it finally comes down to conventional warfare, I hope you are not postulating Russia or China can outgun the US.
In terms of raw fire power, the US is unmatched. Check out the stats on different military sites.
For all the new tanks, anti-air craft and cruise missiles churned out by them, the US already has a ready counter.

And then, you've not included new weapons research like drones, robots and satellite weapons.
Or say air superiority, the Sukhoi line of fighters have not clearly proven they can compete with either the F-35 or older variations in direct confrontations.
As a unit, the US airforce has more flying hours under its belt and has racked more live combat situations than any competitor out there.
Only a combination of allied European airpower can pose a real threat to US air superiority.
Over all air superiority is US turf...from the arctic to the antarctic...over the entire Eurasian airspace even.
While Russia has a very capable military that can definitely match anything thrown out by the Americans,
the combination of superior finances and superior combat experience will best them in the long run.
China's mammoth army will simply be tutored by the US in ground warfare if they can bring the heat on.

IMO, the apparent effective measures to counter US superiority as I have mentioned is firstly bringing the war directly to American soil and that failing, getting Europe to switch sides. America is unlikely to survive either.

Sorry for the long epistle
My opinions tho.

OmoUSH:

Shymmx or what do you call yourself, I understand all what you are trying to say but you gat 85% of your points bad regarding America's might. Here is what the book ''International Relations'' 3rd Edition has to say regarding this global empire, The United States is the technological giant of the world- indeed, of all time. WHATEVER OTHER PEOPLES AND NATIONSMAY THINK OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF HER POLICIES, THEY ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF HER TREMENDOUS POWER, BOTH ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL.
Please note, I am German apologist not a pro American. America is the foundation of modern nuclear warfare.
_To this day few Americans grasp that at Midway their navy won a sea victory to stand in military chronicles with Salamis and Lepanto. For the third time in planetary history, Asia sailed forth to attack the West in force with ultimate stakes of world dominion. At salamis the Greeks turned back the Persians; at Lepanto the Venetian coalition halted Islam; and at Midway the Americans stopped, at least for our century, the rising tide of Asiatic colour_ (From World Holocaust by General Armin von Roon, War and Remembrance). General Armin, convicted Nazi war general, writes this on Midway in 1979.
Hiroshima changed the history of universal warfare. On that early morning,August 6, 1945, that the United States bombed the city, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proclaimed in great announcement' ''the basic power of the universe'' had been unleashed against Japan.
As the cold war began, it was really USSR that started the arms race, and by the late 50's, the Soviet Union conquered space by launching Sputnik 1. Thereby, the space age began.

decode55:


What alliance?

Keep borders safe with what?

Rusty Ak47 rifles?

Wake up bro.

Shymm3x:


You defeated your own argument by calling yourself an apologist for a country in the Western axis. In case you don't know, the world has always been divided into two in the modern era - west and east. The South is inconsequential cos those who occupy the South are third world countries and they can't bite, apart from being an appendage to the big players.

That said, though I'm more of a Brit - I'm not an apologist for anyone. I will take you the weakness of the UK, regardless of all the myths out there. But I do admire strong leaders, countries with a great history, and bravehearts with never say die attitude. Perhaps that is why you and a lot of folks always think I'm more pro-East than pro-West despite the objectivity in my posts.

If it were about military posturing - the Vietnam war would have been a walkover for the yanks with all the agent orange, napalm, and carpet bombings of the Vietcong...but that wasn't the case and they lost against that ragtag army. Ditto the war in Korea against the Red Army and how the almighty coalition army ran at the Chongcho River (I don't know if I got the spelling right). You don't fight wars on paper - you fight on the battlefield.

Shymm3x:


You defeated your own argument by calling yourself an apologist for a country in the Western axis. In case you don't know, the world has always been divided into two in the modern era - west and east. The South is inconsequential cos those who occupy the South are third world countries and they can't bite, apart from being an appendage to the big players.

That said, though I'm more of a Brit - I'm not an apologist for anyone. I will take you the weakness of the UK, regardless of all the myths out there. But I do admire strong leaders, countries with a great history, and bravehearts with never say die attitude. Perhaps that is why you and a lot of folks always think I'm more pro-East than pro-West despite the objectivity in my posts.

If it were about military posturing - the Vietnam war would have been a walkover for the yanks with all the agent orange, napalm, and carpet bombings of the Vietcong...but that wasn't the case and they lost against that ragtag army. Ditto the war in Korea against the Red Army and how the almighty coalition army ran at the Chongcho River (I don't know if I got the spelling right). You don't fight wars on paper - you fight on the battlefield.

Shymm3x:


Lol. I think you're overrating the effects of fighting weak nations on combat readiness. Using football analogy: that's more or less like saying cos Brazil hasn't lost any game against minnows in the last 12 games or so after the world cup - this Brazilian squad is as balanced/competitive as the German, or even the Belgian team. The only thing you achieve while fighting minnows is to test the impact of new weapons but you don't get the necessary test for combat. The big guns are a different kettle of fish entirely and you won't know what it's like till you get into the "ring" with them. I also believe that's why a few heads in the Pentagon always get carried away sometimes and they tend to underestimate a lot of countries like what happened during the Georgian war and the utter shock of the swift and near perfect Russian response - despite all the money, equipment, and military personnel they rinsed there. Ditto the on-going Ukrainian crisis - and how the Russians took them by surprise with the perfect tactical/strategic capture of Crimea without firing a single bullet. Israel with all its noise and bullying of the Palestinians got its arse handed to it by the well-trained Hezbollah troops in 2006.

Big countries won't fight asymmetrically - it's going to be a conventionally war, with all cards on the table, and hopefully, without nukes. Advanced tactical strategy is the name of the game - and the morale/fortitude of the troops would be highly important. However, US soldiers aren't the most mentally tough out there, and they've an habit of breaking down when they face adversity - that's an open secret. [/b]Also, the US conventional war doctrine is based mostly on air superiority and air cover for the troops - once you take that away, how'll they be able to hack it against troops whose mentality is death before breaking and who dares, wins? And best believe all those military bases and whatever advantage the yanks have in reach would be targeted all over the planet with ICBMs as soon as it kicks off - and the field is going to level up faster than you think.

[b]Don't talk about the US marines - they're average at best. They can't even compete with British Army and Royal Marines, or any of the regular European forces. Everyone knows that and it's evident in all NATO exercises. As for Delta Force, Green Brets, and Navy SEALs - they're all just one under different banners - just normal Special Forces like every other country has, but two are just less efficient than the SEALs. That's like SBS and SAS in the UK. In a real war situation - I don't even think NATO can defeat Russia (the new Russia) in continental Europe and most military analysts will tell you that. And if the US and China were to go at it in the Pacific - I won't be on anyone. But if it were to start dragging, I'd give the Chinese the upper-hand. However, if it becomes a global things - then the permutation would change depending on how balanced the allies on either side are. Also, during war time - money would be available to everyone cos that's how banks make their money. And all these countries have more than enough raw materials to build whatever they want in abundance, to build to keep fighting the war for at least a decade or more.

You lot read too much yank sabre-rattling - wars and capabilities aren't televised on TV by MSM nor are they scripted in Hollywood. When you see folks like Henry Kissinger begging the war hawks in Pentagon for caution, you should know it's deeper than rap.

emmatok:

LOL,
I have noticed you always undermine the US when it come to international Relations and Military might.

But the US seems to be the only Country fighting wars for the past 20 years till date, even when other countries are pulling out.

And don't compare the NAVY SEAL or Marines to British SAS, the same SAS guys that were disgraced in Libya.

Only the Russian Spetsnaz can confidently challenge the US NAVY SEAL or Marines.

OmoUSH:

Seriously dude, I really thought you know what you've been talking about all along. You are just randomly ranting. Obviously, America is unparalleled in every you can think about.

cc. CHECK MY FIRST POST ON THIS THREAD IN PAGE 3.

xp17:
I really like this M203 granade launcher, it's a multi task. It also serves as M16 A2 assault raffle.


But I still prefer the M249 machine gun though .

tdayof:
the Russian Air Force now owns a match of this ! They currently own the fastest jet fighter now.

Shymm3x:


You defeated your own argument by calling yourself an apologist for a country in the Western axis. In case you don't know, the world has always been divided into two in the modern era - west and east. The South is inconsequential cos those who occupy the South are third world countries and they can't bite, apart from being an appendage to the big players.

That said, though I'm more of a Brit - I'm not an apologist for anyone. I will take you the weakness of the UK, regardless of all the myths out there. But I do admire strong leaders, countries with a great history, and bravehearts with never say die attitude. Perhaps that is why you and a lot of folks always think I'm more pro-East than pro-West despite the objectivity in my posts.

If it were about military posturing - the Vietnam war would have been a walkover for the yanks with all the agent orange, napalm, and carpet bombings of the Vietcong...but that wasn't the case and they lost against that ragtag army. Ditto the war in Korea against the Red Army and how the almighty coalition army ran at the Chongcho River (I don't know if I got the spelling right). You don't fight wars on paper - you fight on the battlefield.

decode55:
Nigeria;

-1,000,000 war heads

tuoyoojo:
Imagine all this stuff built to kill and destroy in a matter od seconds. War doesn't determine who is right, it only shows those left

loomer:
The truth be say, it is inevitable

omenka:
There you have it. When one says they resent and dread another war in the country, the nairaland resident war mongers call one all manner of names from "slave" to "coward".

I don't know if it was Einstein but someone once said "I don't know the kind of weapons man would use to fight WWIII but WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones".

This means mankind is likely to bomb herself back to the stone age in an event of a WWIII.

War benefits no one but only military contractors and they are those that ensure the world never realise real peace.

lozairio:
Dude the US will beat russia in a conventional warfare but will be a Mutual assured destruction in a nuclear war

starlingslimnet:
America will defeat russia without any problem. Why on earth do you think Americans keep exploring the space?

PabloAfricanus:


True talk...the yanks are in love with war and bullying weaker nations.
But thats what strong empires do na...cant fault them on that. You have the power...you gotta use it somehow.

The US military is actually is the most combat ready in the world.
Compared to other leading armed forces...they have been fighting continuously since the end of WW2.
They have an extensive array of seasoned and carefully trained fighters that can be deployed in any terrain
and on demand.
Only the British and maybe Israel can field soldiers matching the Marines, Delta Forces and other US special forces in terms
of fighting experience.
Those mofos are on queue for global tours 24/7! You can't beat that.
The Europeans have not seen any major army-wide engagements since WW2.
Compare that to Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan 1 and 2, all the skirmishes in South Americas,
numerous CIA assasinations across all the continents, policing all the 5 oceans, dominating the skies day since WW2,
satellite and space domination...the yanks are loaded to the eyeballs with precision skilled soldiers.
And you have not even mentioned the dozens of military bases spread all over the world.

As for wits and intelligence...even China knows the name of the game is advanced strategy...not even tactics will save
you in a direct confrontation with US forces. Not conventional weapons, not allies, not even nukes.
The game is asymmetrical warfare involving the financial markets, trading and shipping routes, foreign assets and deposits.
They have refined the art of confrontational warfare...any terrain, any time, multiple theaters of war running concurrently.

The only ace card that can turn the card against the use is atomic weapons or the opposition bringing the war to American soil.
I think the only feasible strategy barring chemical and atomic warfare is to bring the fight directly to American cities.
Thats when all your scenarios will really count.

ebamma:
Nigerian army dey like civil defence for this countries eye

989900:
No one is gon' use nuclear weapons, 'cause no one has a monopoly over it.

Using one in 2015, is as good as suicide.

Only the North Koreans and the Iranians could be that stupid.

Freemanan:

Your distaste for military hullabaloo is not misplaced... You should understand that it is a necessary evil. The US budget for military alone is 30% of that of the world.....

So you live in barracks? Tell me your experience.

laidian:


kikikikikikiki! Please be informed that Russia is the lord of space. There will be no clear winner between the duo; America leads Russia in precision weapons, with America's pre-emptive attack capability, Russia is still capable of destroying 70% of American cities without any problem. Don't forget that Russia unarguably has the best defensive system.

May God forbid WWIII!