Thread: War Declared
View Single Post
  #40  
Old 03-26-2011, 03:04 PM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post
Wow! False! The United States bombed plenty of cities, including Hamburg and Dresden (yes, the United States took part in Dresden).

The person who says numbers do not matter, obviously has too few men. Numbers do count. Numbers count a lot. Not only is it a large mass of warm bodies for you to throw endlessly at your enemies, it also has a psychological affect on them as well. If you saw an endless wave of enemies coming toward you defenses, you would break and fall back.

I do not care how any victory was achieved. Lusankya acted as if the U.S military was unbeatable, said there was no one who could beat it. The point is, yes, there are people who can beat it as there have been people who could beat it in the past.

About my Rome comparison. In no way did I directly compare the two armies. I simply stated that they were both considered unbeatable until they were beaten.
So that's four cities now listed. How many hundreds of cities did British allies bomb willy nilly? And the Americans took part in the bombing of Dresden they weren't the only bombers there the British were doing their standard carpet bombing in the raid as well. In comparison to our allies we were pretty sparing in terms of bombing cities. Dresden took place toward the end of the war where we needed to pressure a surrender. So while we bombed peaceful cities full of citizens we did them for a reason.
Quote:
The person who says numbers do not matter, obviously has too few men.
You do know that Sun Tzu is Chinese right...... and he pretty much developed the system in which most modern tacticians take into consideration.

To bring your analogy of 1vs10 if that one is in a airplane just how successful do you think that one is going to be? In the 1v10 battle if that 1 is not only better equipped but has better armor as well how well do you think he is gonna do? Khaj mentioned better tactical training which in any battle is the most important component. If that one has better tactics who do you think is going to win? The US has all of those advantages against larger armies. With air superiority 1v10 is child's play 1v50 would be more like a challenge.

Quote:
If you saw an endless wave of enemies coming toward you defenses, you would break and fall back.
That endless wave can be easily crippled and shut down by digging into the terrain and push that endless wave back until reinforcements arrived. No soldier in his right mind in a key defensive position would just fall back because the army was bigger. You can train nerve in soldiers, it's not easy but it can be done.

And if the defensive position were to fall back it would be so that they can get a better position to curb the enemy advance. They will go to higher ground or terrain where they can pick them off.

Numbers haven't been a psychological advantage since armies have teched up. Smaller armies use guerrilla tactics to force a stalemate with larger forces look at what happened in Vietnam. We pumped large numbers of fairly reluctant soldiers into that jungle and the relatively small group of guerrilla insurgents forced us into a draw and based on our objectives a "loss" on our part. It was a loss by forfeit not a loss because we simply got overpowered. Once again if we really wanted to win that war we had the tech to just burn the country to dust without even dropping a nuke. Napalm and the MOAB were what made American appeal in the warzone fall because we took after Europe and carpet bombed. If we didn't care about civilians like our enemies our wars now would be battles our wars then would be a week of burning down a jungle.


Quote:
they were both considered unbeatable until they were beaten.

One was unbeatable in its prime. It got defeated after its prime had long past. When Rome lost its army it was a shadow of its former self. The undefeated heavy weight boxing champ will eventually get too old to box and have to give away his title in a fight to a boxer of his caliber in his prime. The US hasn't lost that prime yet so comparing an aging decrepit army to one that is still in its prime is not a valid one.

Vietnam was a forced draw. The US lost because they couldn't invade which was the objective. Ultimately the Vietcong managed to do what most successful guerrilla forces managed to do: stab at the giants foot until one of two things happened A) that giant goes away or b) that giant curb stomps the whole area. Being relatively gentle giants we chose A.

If the Vietcong truly wanted to win the army battle they would have counterattack on our soil and Lus said it better than I ever could:


Quote:
In the case of our scenario, no army in the world can fight a major land war against the US and be able to use their numbers, superior or not. It doesn't matter how many soldiers they have, whenever they show their faces in numbers they will be bombed into oblivion since the US is guaranteed to have aerial superiority.
In terms of the Afghan war and the previous war with Afghanistan we face the same issues with this populace than what we had to face in Vietnam. The real enemy of the war is hiding in the populace and an army cannot pick the real bad guy out of a group of people who look relatively the same in terms of innocence. We could just flatten the whole region but we won't because the US isn't going to kill off citizens. Most likely the Afghan war is going end just like the Iraq war. We are going to gut out the major power there settle any domestic disputes set up a stable government for the people to work with and leave.

Quote:
The war in Iraq was a real war, now don't say it's not. The US dragged the UK into it because Bush didn't like Saddam. I know several soldiers who fought in Iraq and also I know several that died because of Bush dragging us into it. Only one of my friends that died in Iraq was killed by the hostiles, the rest were killed by American friendly fire.

The war in Afghanistan is also a real war, and it's a war which the US CANNOT win. How long have you guys been trying to find Osama, and he's hiding in a cave!!

Political or not, the US couldn't beat Vietnam.

The US could beat the Vietcong. They didn't want to burn away the citizens along with them. The war in Iraq was to allegedly find wmds (there weren't any) the battles that took place in Iraq was America jumping into a civil war they didn't really know about and got caught in the middle of when they hung the guy that originally was the one who held the peace (by tyrannical rule).

The US asked for assistance from the UK. Wanna know something? Vietnam for the US was to help the French out. Its how alliances work. If a soldier dies because he is helping an ally he died just as nobly. People die in wars you should have been prepared to never see your friends again when you heard they were going to a war.

The friendly fire incidents are bad but the UK was not "dragged" into this war the US asked for help and they answered. I'm not entirely familiar with the UK's government but if I remember correctly your Prime Minister got a lot of flack for answering that call.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote