Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
In a total war situation, the US could defeat any other country on the planet, assuming nukes weren't involved. ("winning" a nuclear war is a dicey proposition at the best of times.) US defeats since WWII have come because of a lack of political will to prosecute the war in question, not a lack of military capability. No one actually thinks that they can beat the US in a knock-down drag-out fight — but there are countries (China and Russia being the top of that list) that can put up enough of a fight that the US isn't willing to get into a knock-down drag-out fight with them in the first place.
American exceptionalism is a real thing and a legitimate target of criticism, but "lol you're not really that tough" is an incredibly wrongheaded way to go about it.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.We also killed way more Vietnamese than they killed of us. If you score wars by body count, we devastated an entire generation from that nation. No, the failure in Vietnam was one of political will, not of military might, although one side effect of the political mess was a serious drop in the morale of our soldiers.
The key strategic issue with Vietnam was that we were fighting asymmetrically in a number of ways. We had a conventional army with X numbers of troops; they were throwing their entire population at us: anyone who could hold a gun was sent into the field, often taking weapons from those who had died before them since there weren't enough to go around. The jungle was not their friend; as many died to disease and injury as died to American bullets and bombs.
When China began sending regular army units (the NVA) into the field, the situation became more even, but even so, over 1 million people died on the North Vietnamese side.
edited 19th Jul '16 7:14:24 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm a bit iffy on the idea that we could defeat anyone in a symmetrical war. Iraq and Afghanistan showed our logistics and fighting ability wasn't as perfect as they were on paper. Once conflicts last longer than about a week our power really starts to falter.
Not to mention we haven't fought anyone even remotely near our tech level in a loooooong time.
Oh really when?Thank God for th—hey wait a goddamned minute! What's with this But for Me, It Was Tuesday Phrasing? The "unserious" conflicts you bumble through make and break nations and powers and people. For you, it may be a fart here and there, but for us, it's the fetid winds of destiny!
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Not to mention we haven't fought anyone even remotely near our tech level in a loooooong time.
The way you win a war against the US isn't by beating them, it's by being more expensive to fight than we're willing to deal with.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Sun Tzu would say that a war fought by perfectly symmetrical sides is a losing exercise. U.S. military doctrine is to meet the enemy with overwhelming force. Never mind that there is no comparable power to us in the world, the idea that we'd meet our foes head on as exact equals is ludicrous. No general would willingly go into such a situation unless our nation was facing a sovereign territorial threat.
Handle, the hysteria ill becomes you, although if Donald Trump gets elected, it might be justified. So maybe you could lay off the Democrats a bit, eh? You won't get your wish of a United States that leaves everyone else the hell alone, so why not at least go with the side that isn't going to act like a cartoon supervillain?
edited 19th Jul '16 7:12:21 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also, "asymmetric" warfare doesn't mean that one side has 20% more troops than the other; it refers to a condition in which wars are fought not between regular armies but between armies and civilians, or armies and guerrillas. Asymmetric means that the sides are operating under significantly different tactics and rules of engagement.
Going back to Vietnam for a bit, a conservative estimate would be approximately ten North Vietnamese combatant deaths for every death of a U.S. soldier, not counting South Vietnamese losses — not exactly a defeat in pure numbers, but a loss in the end regardless because we lost the political will to continue the war. (source)
note
We've been funding and arming all sides in the Middle East for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It's pretty shameful, but it's also not something you can distinctly blame any one person for.
edited 19th Jul '16 7:26:45 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm just saying, in a humourously overdramatic way, that these conflicts that aren't between superpowers are dead serious, and requesting that they be acknowledged as such.
Also, please don't use the word "hysteria
", it reeks of sexism and pseudoscience. Phobia
and Panic
are perfectly fine words.
As for "if I didn't do Dirty Business X, someone worse would be filling the power vaccum", it is, in fact, a legitimate argument. Though one I instinctively distrust, for obvious reasons.
edited 19th Jul '16 7:26:19 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Basically, our unwillingness to wantonly kill civilians.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So did anything of note happen?
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?