Military Questions
#1
Here's a few Military Questions I have

1. Which do you think is the most efficent Military in the world? Not the Largest since the U.S with the worlds third largest population (though well behind China and India), $US 44.82 Billion in arms sales (1997-2001), a strong Military culture (in my opinion Americans take more pride in their military than most other nations) and $US 343.2 billion spent on their military (2002) then are bigger than anyone else.

2. Do you think Militaries are nessicary?

3. Which do you think are the most effective weapons? For Infantry paticuly.

4. What do you think would have happened if Russia had eventually come to commit troops in the same capasity as the U.S in the Veit Nam war?
Reply
#2
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
2. Do you think Militaries are nessicary?


I wish it wasn't, but it is necessary. There will always be disagreement, there will always be petty feuds and there will always be wars.Confusedo:
Jesus saves, Allah forgives, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
Reply
#3
And one more Question I forgot

5. Should the army be selective about who gose in? Should they be able to bann people with Aids? ADD? ADHD? Dyslexia? Should they be allowd to ban Homosexuals? Foreingers? People of certain political veiws?
Reply
#4
Well here we go.

1. The most effeicent-hard to judge. If there mission is to kill people and break things and keep themselves safe at the same time, I would have to say the US. I don't think anyone else can come close to being effective in that capacity. The British might give us a run for the prize, but our air power alone would leave them far behind. If there is some other criteria for effiecent let me know.

"2. Do you think Militaries are nessicary?" Yes, bad people pop up everywhere and will use force to accomplish there goals, so to protect yourself a military is necessary.

3. Effective? Shoot further, shoot more, shoot more accurate with the least amount of training time. The history channel had an interesting show on this called "Guns of the Century" listed were the Ak-47 and the M16. Which are still used through out the world in different versions and models.

"4. What do you think would have happened if Russia had eventually come to commit troops in the same capasity as the U.S in the Veit Nam war?" I depepends on when the Russians had committed the troops if it had been earlier in the conflict American public opinion would not have swayed so far against the conflict. Later on say after 69 then the US might have felt conflicted more and might have had a lot more incentive to stay in the war thus ripping the country apart even more. Hard to judge.


5. The military already exculdes a lot of people at least the US military does. It does not allow AIDs victims in because of the health issues... no sense in signing up a recruit who will most likely get sick, it would be a tremoundous waste of money. As for people with ADA and such, I have no idea. If they could function without medication they would probably be allowed in. As for political affiliation they certianly don't allow people in from groups that advocate a overthrow of the US goverment, other than that no further questions are asked when you volunteer, even if you obtain a security clearance. (Which I had for several years and the only question I was ever asked was weather I belonged to any groups that advocated violence or the overthrowing of the US goverment) As for immigrants joining up, happens all the time, in fact it is a way to improve your chances of becoming a green card holder and eventually an American citizen.
Now with the wisdom of years, I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
Billy Joel, Shades of Grey, from the River of Dreams album.
Reply
#5
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
Here's a few Military Questions I have

2. Do you think Militaries are nessicary?


yes, militaries are necessary. You can never guarantee that some fool won't try to use force and then you need to protect yourself. However many militaries in the world today are not properly accountable. Many governments are controlled by the military rather than vice versa. And even in democracies, militaries have a tendency to become a state within the state who don't like being told what they should be doing, don't like to spend their money and resources responsibly and accountably and will continually whine they are underfunded while at the same time wasting vast sums on pet projects. Also, I feel that security strategy in general is too fixed on the military and alternatives to securing peace, such as intelligence and early recognition of potential conflicts are underdeveloped.

Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
3. Which do you think are the most effective weapons? For Infantry paticuly.

The most effective weapon in any war is propaganda.

The most effective type of ground troop is the guerilla.

Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
4. What do you think would have happened if Russia had eventually come to commit troops in the same capasity as the U.S in the Veit Nam war?


I believe the US weren't prepared to risk a full scale superpower war at the time. They would have withdrawn sooner. Even if the US wouldn't have done so happily, the US's allies around the world would have put pressure on the US to get out. However, for the same reasons, I don't think the Russians would have got involved in any big way. They would have preferred to see Vietnam fall than to risk their own troops too much. For the same reason the US didn't get involved in the Soviet-Afghan conflict in any big way.
Reply
#6
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
Here's a few Military Questions I have

1. Which do you think is the most efficent Military in the world? Not the Largest since the U.S with the worlds third largest population (though well behind China and India), $US 44.82 Billion in arms sales (1997-2001), a strong Military culture (in my opinion Americans take more pride in their military than most other nations) and $US 343.2 billion spent on their military (2002) then are bigger than anyone else.


It depends on your criteria of effeciency. If for example you say that effeciency is measured in how much the military of a given nation costs in relation to the amount of territory it has to defend, then Denmark probably wins hands down, since the tiny Danish army and navy defend Greenland.
But if you change the criteria to 'budget/ longest defence' then the example breaks down since Denmark was annexed by Germany during the second world war and I would imagine that Australia is more efficient, since as far as I know, it has never been attacked...

Either way, the US army is incredibly ineffecient because it requires an enourmous budget to maintain, and I would most likely say the British army is the most effecient, with its long history of victories, its relativly small budget and its vast historical and global interests to defend, plus the fact that Briatin has not been invaded since 1066, mean that it fulfills all the criteria I can think of.

Quote: 2. Do you think Militaries are nessicary?


Yes.

Quote: 3. Which do you think are the most effective weapons? For Infantry paticuly.


The bull pup design, 5.56 mm automatic rifle.
The section 5.56 mm light machine gun.
The large bore (60-84mm) recoiless anti tank rifle/ rocket launcher.
The Soviet Rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Quote: 4. What do you think would have happened if Russia had eventually come to commit troops in the same capasity as the U.S in the Veit Nam war?


Where? in Afghanistan?

They would have suffered the same defeat. Wars are not won by strategies or numbers. They are won by confidence, determination and will power.

Quote: 5. Should the army be selective about who gose in? Should they be able to bann people with Aids? ADD? ADHD? Dyslexia? Should they be allowd to ban Homosexuals? Foreingers? People of certain political veiws?


The military of any given nation should reflect the people it defends.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#7
is to enhance the power and wealth of a minority to the detriment of the majority. To that end, we maintain an armed force disproportionate to our needs ( almost the pre - war economy of nazi Germany ). I think the goal is to enrich via government contracts / featherbedding, not defense.

I think we should maintain a much smaller, highly trained military with up to date weapons. I don't belive we should phase out experienced people because it cost more to keep them in uniform than to train new recruits. I would certainly maintain existing equipment before purchasing new stuff that does not add significantly to firepower or effectiveness. I'd like to see more low tech spy networks and the formation of small unit counter - insurgent units. They are far more valuable to us than artillary pieces costing millions.

I favor the German infantry unit configuration of WWII - organization around a machinegun ( MG 38 or 42 in the good old days ). Of course the unit should be equipped with weapons according it maximum firepower.

I believe that higher standards should be applied to recruits. I'm all for male and female, but not gays. They will prove disruptive. We are not back in Sparta where that kind of thing was the norm and didn't effect military efficiency. Times have changed.

I think the Russians and Chinese were clever in the Viet nam conflict. Given a history of that country and the rules of insurgent warfare, the USA would be forced to expend resources in an unpopular war that could not be won. An all out conflict might have turned the tide, but the major powers couldn't afford that given atomic weapons. It was far easier to watch America and the Vietcong get ground down so that North Vietnam could take what was left.

Steve

Steve
The truth is out there. Look it up.
Reply
#8
This is a little off-topic but does anyone know what occurs when a US military personnell is killed in action? What I mean is are there some benefits that are paid out to the family or does the family receive a life-time payment of the soldiers salary or do they get nothing?
Houston . . . we have a problem.
Reply
#9
Quote:Originally posted by moif
plus the fact that Briatin has not been invaded since 1066, mean that it fulfills all the criteria I can think of.


depends waht you mean by invaded.

leving aside wars between Wales/ England and Scotland /England which were also quite definitely invasions, here are all the attempted invasions of Britain since 1066 that I can think of...

Henry VII at Battle of Bosworth Hill. French backed invasion of Britain. Was succesful.

Elizabeth I: Spanish Armada. Was defeated.

William of Orange: glorious revolution. Dutch backed invasion. Was succesful.

James Stuart: French backed rebellion in Scotland leading to invasion of England. Was defeated.

Charles Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) ditto.

WW2: Battle of Britain. Was defeated.

I'm probably missing some, but of the six attempted invasions, 2 were succesful. That puts the succeful defence rate at 66.7%.
Reply
#10
Quote:Originally posted by shadowfax
depends waht you mean by invaded.


By invaded, I mean annexed by a foreign military power.

In neither of the two successful cases you mention, was England/ Britain taken over by an outside force, such as happened in 1066 when England was annexed by Normandy.

Neither France nor Holland ruled over England, they just helped promote a 'regime change' :tongue:
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#11
Quote:Originally posted by moif
By invaded, I mean annexed by a foreign military power.

In neither of the two successful cases you mention, was England/ Britain taken over by an outside force, such as happened in 1066 when England was annexed by Normandy.

Neither France nor Holland ruled over England, they just helped promote a 'regime change' :tongue:


I'd like to disagree, as IMHO the intention of an invader doesn't matter when you're talking about the effectiveness of an army. What matters is that an 'invading' army is able to defeat the defending army. What further lying interests are involved matters to politics but not to the effectiveness of the military.
Reply
#12
Quote:Originally posted by moif
and I would most likely say the British army is the most effecient, with its long history of victories, its relativly small budget and its vast historical and global interests to defend, plus the fact that Briatin has not been invaded since 1066, mean that it fulfills all the criteria I can think of.


As you also mention the global interests that the British army defended rather than just Britain, I should extend my statistic to colonial interests.

In terms of conquests, the British army was highly effective. Examples that comes to mind are the defeat of the French in Canada, the seizing of many Carribean territorries from Spain. There were also failures however, such as the failed attempt to conquer Uruguay. I don't know enought about that aspect of history though to attempt a list.

In terms of defense though, the only major atempt at invading British colonies that I can think of was by the Japanese during WW2. The Japanese were highly effective overrunning Singapore, Burma etc and well on its way to Australia and India. Britain would never have regained any of these territorries without massive American help. So you can say that effectively the British defences failed.
Reply
#13
Quote:Originally posted by shadowfax
I'd like to disagree, as IMHO the intention of an invader doesn't matter when you're talking about the effectiveness of an army. What matters is that an 'invading' army is able to defeat the defending army. What further lying interests are involved matters to politics but not to the effectiveness of the military.


If you disagree then you must have another example... an army which was more effective... ?
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#14
Quote:Originally posted by moif
If you disagree then you must have another example... an army which was more effective... ?


I meant that I disagree with your definition of invasion.

according to http://www.wordreference.com

to invade = to enter (a country, territory, etc.) by military force

You advocate that the Battle of Bosworth Hill was not an invasion because it's purpose was a regime change and not annexation of territory by France. My response is that the purpose is irrelevant, it is the military action that is the invasion.
Reply
#15
Quote:Originally posted by moif
It depends on your criteria of effeciency. If for example you say that effeciency is measured in how much the military of a given nation costs in relation to the amount of territory it has to defend, then Denmark probably wins hands down, since the tiny Danish army and navy defend Greenland.


I messure efficentcy by how much is spent vs. how much is done. My vote gose to Isreal because with a lotless money that the U.S Military is achived things like the six day war, (Yom Kippur was only set back against Egypt by their AA misiles, Syria and Jordan both got hammered). If you want to look at pure effectivness America can out last almost any nation in a war and so would more than likly win if it can hold it's moral and borders.

Quote:Originally posted by moif
But if you change the criteria to 'budget/ longest defence' then the example breaks down since Denmark was annexed by Germany during the second world war and I would imagine that Australia is more efficient, since as far as I know, it has never been attacked...


Australia was attacked in a minor way during WW2 by the Japanese. They bombed Darwin and sent some migit subs into Sydney Harbour. There were plans to attack Australia head on, however Australia is an extreamly difficult place to move unfriendly troops through and there are few places to land.

Personally I think the problem with the Australian defence force is that it dose too much over seas. Since there are only a small number of recruits and far less money put in that hoWARd would like (he has however been increasing defence spending for the last few years) we would have trouble defending ourselves against a conventional land attack, having said that there is almost no one within reach that would want to invade us.

Quote:Originally posted by moif
The bull pup design, 5.56 mm automatic rifle.
The section 5.56 mm light machine gun.
The large bore (60-84mm) recoiless anti tank rifle/ rocket launcher.
The Soviet Rocket propelled grenade launcher.


Why?

Quote:Originally posted by moif
Where? in Afghanistan?

They would have suffered the same defeat. Wars are not won by strategies or numbers. They are won by confidence, determination and will power.


I mean if Russia sent troops to Veitnam to fight against the Americans.
Reply
#16
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
I messure efficentcy by how much is spent vs. how much is done. My vote gose to Isreal because with a lotless money that the U.S Military is achived things like the six day war, (Yom Kippur was only set back against Egypt by their AA misiles, Syria and Jordan both got hammered).


Israel spends more on defense PER CAPITA than any other country, including North Korea. The military in Israel and the associated taxation is a serious drag on the economy. Probably, Israel wouldn't be able to maintain that level of defence if it didn't receive financial aid (as it does from America and to a lesser extent other countries). Without this aid the country would have gone bankrupt long ago. Therefore I don't really see a model worth emulating.
Reply
#17
Is anyone going to answer my question? Sad
Houston . . . we have a problem.
Reply
#18
Quote:Originally posted by shadowfax
Israel spends more on defense PER CAPITA than any other country, including North Korea. The military in Israel and the associated taxation is a serious drag on the economy. Probably, Israel wouldn't be able to maintain that level of defence if it didn't receive financial aid (as it does from America and to a lesser extent other countries). Without this aid the country would have gone bankrupt long ago. Therefore I don't really see a model worth emulating.


Define per Capita.
Reply
#19
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
Define per Capita.


Per head of population. Ity means that the average Israeli citizens pays more to the military budget of Israel than the citizens of any other nation.

Quote:Originally posted by moif
The bull pup design, 5.56 mm automatic rifle.

It is light and has an even weight distribution whilst retaining the stopping power of the heavier 7.62 mm rifles.

Quote:The section 5.56 mm light machine gun.

Because experience has shown that a small unit of 4 - 10 grouped around a light machine gun can move forwards whilst retaining its own base of fire.
The best weapon for this job, that I know of is the light weight 5.56 mm FN Mimini, which can be either belt or magazine fed, and is compatable with the ammunition box for most NATO 5.56mm rifles thus making it easier for unites to keep the weapon fed.

Quote:The large bore (60-84mm) recoiless anti tank rifle/ rocket launcher.

Because this weapon is one of the few infantry weapons with the capability to stop an armoured vehicle, although it is becoming less effective against many of the later tank designs.

Quote:The Soviet Rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Very cheap, very easy to use and good against soft targets and light vehicles.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#20
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
Define per Capita.


total cost divided by number of persons residing in country
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Military robots no longer just science fiction Michael 0 580 February 21st, 2010, 04:16 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Military organization honors Toby Keith missferal 0 933 February 14th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Last Post: missferal
  Military's porn ban questioned RobRoy 16 977 November 15th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  the best questions/jokes eva!!!! vikuxa 1 536 July 21st, 2005, 04:04 AM
Last Post: Stripe
  Military Rave the Red 15 1,405 May 1st, 2004, 07:44 AM
Last Post: wyofarscape1
  Mordern Military DeamondBleed 7 725 December 14th, 2003, 01:10 AM
Last Post: TwoXForr
  Military questions DeamondBleed 4 524 October 18th, 2003, 04:47 AM
Last Post: Paladin
  Oh, boy!!! One of the stupidest questions ever!! the firstborn 4 730 June 18th, 2003, 11:27 PM
Last Post: the firstborn
  Women in the Military? Traveller 52 3,167 May 6th, 2003, 04:05 PM
Last Post: Steve Faust
  Questions about New Zeland Undomiel 13 795 March 19th, 2003, 06:52 PM
Last Post: Undomiel

Forum Jump: