So what countries nowadays have the "best" military, anyway? Is it actually the burgers...

So what countries nowadays have the "best" military, anyway? Is it actually the burgers, or do they just have the fanciest toys to play around with?

Other urls found in this thread:

foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/russia-winning-the-electronic-war/
sputniknews.com/military/201705131053579633-russia-electronic-warfare-systems-production/
academia.edu/32352832/Later_Roman_Battle_Tactics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Đổi_mới
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Burgers.
They have most able reserves too.Russian military is a joke just look at how Russia managed to fuck up Georgian war, not to mention how they have been unable to beat Ukraine.

Are you telling me those outfits aren't stylish as fuck?

...

North Korea obviously

Burgers. Their logistical capabilities, funding, and tech are unmatched.

Russia didn't invade Ukraine. They just fund the proxy war.

Also America is very incompetent compared to Russia in terms of leadership. Russia would win 10/10 times. Even with nukes.

America has, hands down, the best military, ever, and probably will always have the best military. We seriously could just fuck up an entire nation without a single boot on the ground.

it's a good thing too

Speaking of military, USA > Europe > East Asia > others (insignificant), I think it's the most objective ranking of global capitalist forces.
Imperialist center must have the strongest army in the area of its influence by definition. And today its area of influence is the whole Earth. When it comes to armies, too many people are blinded by their petty nationalist sentiments, unaware of what role the military plays in the global capitalist regime.

To this day I still don't get why Russian helmets are so big.

Worked as a DoD contractor for 12 years. The US military's strength is very weak at the moment.

After 3 wars,everyone forgets we're still in Bosnia all the US Military's is stuff is all broken. That's probably the real reason they rely on drones so much. Not to mention the soilders, although since Obama stopped Iraq the morale has improved still shit though

Also holy crap the amount of corruption in the procurement process read: the way the military buys weapons is so fucking bonkers, can't tell you how many new weapons systems don't don't work anywhere outside a lab. Most likely if there's a real war with a state peer they're going to find out none of that shit works. This actually happened when the civil war started and Lincoln passed all these regs against military contractors that military contractors have been eating away at since Bush 2.

The Americans by a furlong. Their Air Force–even with its retardedly expensive and less than optimal new aircraft–is without a challenger in the world thus giving them total dominance in the air wherever they go. The level of integration and sophistication in all of its component parts is unlike anything that existed prior to the twenty-first century. It is utterly terrifying…

…but oh so expensive and oh so dependent upon full-integration.

...

That filled my daily allowance of irony.

US, though i don't know if they would be able to actually fund their ridiculously resource inefficient army in any real war.

My cousin is in the US Air Force, actually. He's a bit of a cunt, tbh
DESSERT CAROUSEL

America is going to need to balkanized in order for any serious socialist revolution to take place isn't it?

They would be, manifacturing of weaponry would just be taken away form the hands of corporations just like in the last total war scenario they went trough.

there's no possibility of "real war" because of the geographical position of the USA, it will be either a navy war of air force war, ore more probably both, and the USA is unmatched in both.

ment for>>1862467

British Army SF train everyone else so I'd go with them.

Their general army is terribly equipped, though.

This.
Especially when Burger military budget is literally 10x the next highest military budget.

The worst part is no one wants to acknowledge this is the reason why Burgers are suffering as a people. Education is in the shitter, healthcare is essentially nonexistent (unless you pay out the ass for ridiculous coverage), and why the infrastructure is basically cracked.

Worst part is if you bring up this fact people thumb their nose at you and ask if you're Un-American.

For short term wars probably America. For long term wars I don’t know. I’m American and not that many people want to volunteer for military service. Yes we have reserves, but what happens when those die. Most people here won’t volunteer and if the government reinstates the draft people will riot in the streets.

it shows

The American military is structured so that any real war with a conventional military will be essentially over in a week. Modern wars are not long, grinding affairs, because battle lines no longer truly exist. The entire theater is the front.

It works like this:

Day 1, the cruise missiles and stealth bombers annihilate the anti-air network with the help of satellite, JSTAR, and recondo guidance.

Day 2, the Air Force slaughters the defending air force in a turkey shoot.

Day 3, armored cav and air cav slices through supply lines and lines of retreat.

Day 4, strike aircraft wipe out defending armor as it tries to flee and consolidate

Day 5, armored units and infantry move into the cities and rout opposing infantry

Day 6, the cities are cleared out and all defending command centers are forced afield

Day 7, the occupation begins

It does not afford the defenders time to exploit the inefficiencies built into the system.

will this work on a non third world country that could hold up much longer? Sure the us has lots of nice toys but they can't always bring them all and will likely be outnumbered and attacking.

The lifers tend to be pricks. They get "ate up" as we used to say. There are There are cool airmen, and then there are those assholes. Of course, those assholes are the guys who tend to get promoted quickly.


People volunteer when it is the best way to get out of their current situation. Expect that to be the case for a lot of people when shit starts getting really bad.

Supposedly my cousin's just in it to become an air traffic controller, since those make loads of dosh. He's only 18, not a lifer yet.

A non-third-world country will have nuclear weapons, which means that a shooting war is not going to happen at all. Instead, the alphabet soup agencies will subvert the living fuck out of the target country and promote insurrections and general chaos.

"non-3rd world" countries all obey the USA economically and politically

This strategy has worked exactly once gulf war 1 since World War II

He's an ATC? That job is a nightmare. It's the kind of job that drives a guy to suicide. Even if ATCs are usually self-impressed dicks, I can't say anything too bad about them just because they are so pitiable. I went to tech school with the ATCs, and I have seen the shit they have to go through. Then, when they get out the only job available to them is to be a civilian ATC which is just as miserable. Fuck that noise.

And Gulf War 2. And Bosnia where they pretty much just let their proxies do the actual fighting. And Afghanistan, which really was over as soon as Pakistan knuckled under. Don't confuse the occupation with the war.

Also, if you think that the occupations have not been a total success then you are missing the reasons why the invasions happened in the first place. The Americans have their bases, they have their oil, and they do not even have to administer the conquered provinces. They are ridiculously efficient examples of modern imperialism. It is all the resource extraction with none of the overhead or responsibility.

Really? Huh. Why's it so bad?
You are right in that he is definitely a self-impressed dick. The military hasn't made it any better either.

Uh no it didn't work there.
This is only partly true, Bosnia is still shit and most likely will go right back to fighting if NATO ever leaves

US military demolishes a country whenever the US president gets a blowjob in an improper place

What?

It is extremely high-stress. ATCs are constantly quickly performing complex tasks, and any slight mistake on their part could result in the death of hundreds. As such, they are forced to work in a very regimented environment. Their superiors are constantly all over them (at least the ones I saw had it like that). To make matters worse, because their job is so stressful they have high turnover and are frequently understaffed as a result. They get stuck with long, and often irregular, hours.

Sector command guys like I was experienced a completely different Air Force.

So? Making Bosnia not shit was never the mission.

Day 8, Reactionary, Far-Right, Anti-Imperialist Politics becomes very Popular

Day 30, Verious Insurgency Movments Fail at ending Occupation

Day 500, After the Occupation Ends an Incomplete and Unpopular Puppet Government if formed

Day 510, ISIS sleeper cells go off at capture large chunks of said country.

Yeah it did.

...

...

Relative to the resources and population they have available probably North Korea.

Otherwise America.
Yes but that doesn't really mean they don't have the best military when modern day wars are more about who has the most and best weapons than anything else.

What the fuck?

That doesn't sound right…

It's billions of US dollars spent, not percentage of GDP.

I think that it would be more accurate to say that the most significant aspect of a modern military is sophistication. Having the best aircraft does not necessarily give you the best air force, but having the most sophisticated system of establishing air supremacy does. Give me a squadron of old F-16s with JTIDS, AWACs, and a CRC over a lone squadron of F-22s any day.

Is there any chance of robots replacing solders entirely within the next few decades?

maybe.

Nah. You are more likely to see many military functions be largely replaced by mercenaries–"contractors"–who work for certain civilian state agencies or corporations. Nobody has to keep track of how many of them die, and governments can deny responsibility for the people that they kill.

Didn't Machiavelli say something about using mercenaries instead of a real military? Given the time and place where he lived, I think his input might be useful on this projection.

Fuck it, I'll just grab the quote myself:

I know a lot of people say The Prince was intentionally misleading and full of bad advice, but I don't see how he's wrong here.

Here's how WOrld War 3 would play out.

America will have sponsored military and tanks with McDonald's and Microsoft logos before you know it.

Russia has World War 2-era vintage tanks, planes and artillery, mostly rusted.

China has cheap plastic imitations of everything America has. Most of them don't work. On the other hand, there's millions of them.

China in particular have an awful lot of power equalisers which could neutralise American advantages. Anti-satellite weapons knock out satellites, cheap drones bash at the fighters through sheer numbers, subs take out aircraft carriers, American troops go up against millions and millions of Chinese.

Over half of the US forces in Iraq were "private military companies" (mercenaries). One company, Executive Outcomes, overthrew the government of Sierra Leone and basically won the Angolan civil war for the government. It also fought a dirty war for Papua New Guinea in return for mining concessions. Mercenaries provide security at most of the enclaved extraction hubs run by western companies in unstable environments.

I forget who it was that said that each mercenary that you hire is worth three men to you–one soldier for you, one fewer soldier for you enemy, and one worker on your farms at home. God knows the bastards get paid like three men.

But isn't their continued compliance reliant on US economic dominance? For example, a merc could fuck off to Russia and shoot people for them, but they'd probably make a whole lot less money than they would on the US payroll, which is why most of them stay on - there's no higher bidder, and because the US has such a strong military, it also means they probably wouldn't want to fight them, as well.

If either of these conditions were to change, what do you think private military companies would do?

The US only enjoys its preeminence because of the technological advantage it gained during the Cold War. It's an advantage that is quickly diminishing, by the day in fact. The hot new thing are hyper sonic cruise missiles. The few that Russia launched last year from the Black Sea into Syria had the Pentagon up in arms. China and Russia are both working on them and could have them in regular service as early as next year or by 2020.

So, the one thing that really gave the US its edge, the ability to deploy anywhere and strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice, is evaporating, not in the least because of advances in its rivals' military technology, but in the massive bloat the US MIC has become. Its two newest weapon systems, the F-35 and the Gerald Ford supercarrier, not only cost tens of billions of dollars on their own, with cost overruns in the hundreds of billions of dollars, neither of them even work right, with the F-35 being a fat piece of shit that can't fly (of course leave it to the Americans to build a plane that's too fat to fly) or deliver ordinance or do any of the shit it was made for and the GFSC also experiencing delays and nonfunctional technology. But at least they have an onboard Starbucks :^)

And all that is aside from the fact that the most technologically advanced fighting force on the planet can't even win against goat herding poppy farmers with AKs. Up until now, the US was tottering on the brink of defeat in Afghanistan as the Taliban threatened to overrun several provinces. (That is, if they even want to win.)

So we're rapidly entering an era where the undisputed dominance of the American military is going to be called sharply into question. I can't say when or how it'll happen, but the US is going to wind up with a big bloody nose one of these days and it's going to be a total surprise to them.

He was one of the early documented examples of the second level of irony. Basically he was sardonically shitposting (I mean, just read about his life), but at the same time he was too smart to strawman his opponents and ended up making a decent argument.

who would win: the most advanced military in the world, or a bunch of rice farmers hiding in a rainforest.

I remember hearing that in the early days of Afghanistan they were asking soldiers to bring their own uniforms.

Can you confirm that sort of thing at all?

the US, obviously. Don't confuse wars with the ensuing occupations. China will probably be stronger at some point though, by sheer volume.

Not at all. What distances the American military from other major militaries is the advancements made in the nineties. JSTARS, TADIL-J, the new and not shitty Hellfires, AMRAAMs, boots and BDUs that are not shit, the COP, and they even have stealth helicopters (try to wrap your head around that concept) for the special forces. The American technological advantage has not slowed down; it has speeded up. The reason for that is that the American military is trying to spread itself over a tremendously large area without adding a whole lot of new soldiers, sailors, or airmen. To do that, it has adopted a doctrine of using superior technology in place of superior numbers.

When you think about it, it is pretty much exactly what the Roman Empire did as it was nearing collapse. It was too expensive to field gigantic legions, so the legions they had got smaller while adding technological innovations (cataphracts, scale mail, dragoons, etc.) to make them much faster and better able to punch above their weight. A legion from Diocletian's army would have wiped the field with one of Augustus' legions and in record time, but Diocletian's legion would cost a colossal fortune to outfit. Horses, bows, and intricate mail are expensive to field and maintain just like M-1 tanks, JSTARs, and all the gear that a modern soldier carries are. That quickly becomes one hell of a financial burden, which is why American wars are concluded with such tremendous speed.

That depends. Do the rice farmers have a sponser with ICBMs?

Quantity has a quality all its own.

i is very interested into further reading
anything for me pls?

Reminds me of how in RTS games even beating a bunch of trash units with expensive ones doesn't mean much if the total value of the units lost is against you. Guess that applies as much to real life, too.

Nah, they got their asses kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that shit you cited doesn't even work I don't know what JSTARS is though

I know for sure the stealth helicopters don't work,people were fucking tweeting about them hours before the Bin Laden raid.

Real disposable elite, it's an excellent book how how the effectiveness of special forces is because they are secret cannon fodder, any unit can be elite if know one know how many Dudes you got killed on the same mission.

The military can't grow for the same reasons unions can't grow. Porky knows the less workers in the military the less likely they are to organize and use all that shit against them.

Holy shit so many burger worshippers…

Why is nobody talking about electronic warfare? All those high-tech burger toys are as good as a turd if they can't be coordinated or controlled. The Russians have invested lots of money on electronic warfare equipment precisely for that. A few years ago when crimea stuff was going down there was an incident where it was rumoured the Russians EW capability spooked the shit out some US navy boats that were in the Black sea, allegedly their entire control system was crashed, basically BSOD. Regardless of how true that is, burgers are concerned about the Russians' EW…

foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/russia-winning-the-electronic-war/
sputniknews.com/military/201705131053579633-russia-electronic-warfare-systems-production/

AK47 are still used not because of tech but because they're reliable and cheap… Computer viruses, advanced jammers, sabotage, destruction of satellites and other means of communication would be the absolute first thing to happen in a *real* modern war between big powers. There's actually already lots of cyberwar activity going on *now*.

If fighting against the burgers the second thing would be to beat the fuck out of their aircraft carriers which really are sitting ducks. Submarines are where it's at.

US military is also weak as fuck, half their force is demoralized because of all the lies thinking they're gonna do noble shit instead of imperialist wars of aggression against defenceless people. If they had to draft people it would be a disaster worse than Vietnam.

I dont think so, the USA establishment has been investing heavily in militarization of population and boosting up the army "fame" precisely because of vietnam and the failure to gather popular support for the invasion
When you compare vietnam to lets say Iraq invasion you can clearly see that USA general population is largely pro war
And the moment serious shit goes down american goverment is gonna ramp up the pro war propaganda 200%

But they aren't. Since WW2 the US has only been able to actually win against tiny nations–Panama, Grenada, Serbia–while facing defeat in anything closer to an equal contest. Despite dropping more ordinance on Vietnam in a single day than was dropped during all of WW2, the US still lost to rice farmers and punji sticks. Even now in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite their overwhelming military superiority, it can't translate into actual victory.

The American military likes to paint itself as a precise scalpel that goes in, "gets the job done," and then leaves peace in its wake, but the reality is more like a steamroller crushing everything in its path and then dispatching spec ops with jackhammers to crush anything that pops up afterwards.

...

The problem with these wars wasn't the technology or the US military's competence in terms of combat. It's that neither one of these wars had a clear "public" reason for being in them in the first place let alone a real "win condition" and that can be said for most modern US wars.

In Iraq there was a constant shifting of goals and a complete lack of planning on the political end as to what we were doing there and how we were going to do it. Afghanistan didn't even have that much of a facade of reasoning as this book shows the near constant confusion even by the top people in the military over what their real objective in the country was and unfortunately still is. (We still haven't officially fucking ended that war.)

I thought Afghanistan was always about controlling the global heroin production.

Uhh, no, that wasn't what the Late Roman Empire did. What they did was train a whole bunch of shitty frontier garrisons to guard the border while the emperor and his buddies kept all the good legions under their command because they were absolutely terrified of rebellion (roman generals had a penchant for couping the government, wonder where that came from). Individual legions were smaller, yes, but they weren't that much more advanced than their neighbours. Literally all the things you mentioned were stolen from their neighbours, cavalry wasn't a significant part of the army until the Eastern Roman Empire, and scale mail is literally a meme - it's not that special, soldiers didn't really use it much (they wore regular mail), and it isn't called scale mail (it's just scale armour). It's a retarded comparison, just like the vast majority of historical analogies, and you should at least know what you're talking about before you make them.

spending doesn't equate to quality, they're just throwing money out to finance the industry, not because their army would be actually efficient.

Burger military tactics

This isn't even really true though. Yes Americlaps have the fanciest tanks and jets but the equipment given to the standard infantryman is still substandard. The Army were still using Humvees a decade after it was known that they were basically rolling IED deathtraps.

Top kek. Do you have no idea what the goals were in either place? Do you not understand the concept of imperialism? They got exactly what they wanted in both places. Afghanistsn is utterly useless to an imperial power beyond the huge geographical advantages that having military bases there affords. Bagram AFB gives them a gun to put to Pakistan's, Uzbekistan's, and India's heads, and it gives them logistical advantages over Iran.

And you must be using CNN logic to see the occupation of Iraq as less than a total success. If you are looking at dollar costs to taxpayers, you need to reacquaint yourself with economic theory. This oil glut that the Americans have been using to ruin OPEC countries was made possible by seizing the oil fields in places like Iraq and flooding the market with overproduction. The Americans extracted, and are still extracting, a tremendous fortune out of Iraq, and by having proxies do nearly all of the occupying they do not even have to pay to rebuild or maintain the country. The spoils from Iraq and the other more subtle conquests in places like Libya and Yemen are what has kept the next Depression at bay.

I've seen them all work except for the stealth helicopters. That shit is just for the SF.

But you know what TADIL-J is? Anyway, JSTARS are like AWACS for the ground picture. They allow the real-time tracking of vehicles and groups of men in the AOR using various detection devices. They instantly relay the information to everyone else in the theater from the carrier group off the coast to the TAC-Ps in the field. Essentially, they do the surveilance in a theater that people usually ascribe to satellites. Their advantages over satellite surveilance are that they are not vulnerable to the electromagnetic storms that bedevil satellites, they can process a whole hell of a lot more information, and they can stay on station for longer.


Humvees are just big jeeps. Armoring them up to withstand explosive charges would make them even slower (humvees are all torque and no horsepower) and reduce their functionality. Ideally, the Army should be using armored troop transports to move soldiers through areas where they might encounter such things. That is the goddamn point of troop transports, but there are numerous reasons why they do not, like the plain fact that Bradleys are too expensive and cannot transport enough soldiers to be a useful troop carrier. They really would be better off just putting the old M113s back in the field. Also, troop carriers have tracks which tear up the streets that you find in places like Iraq.

Yeah it was. Gallienus began the process of transforming the legions into smaller, faster, and more technologically sophisticated units that could quickly react to border incursions in the middle of the third century, and subsequent emperors expanded upon his innovations.

They had been doing that since the republic. The only difference was that before Caracalla they were called auxilleries. Rome did come to rely more heavily on locally-raised legions as time wore on, and in that you could see feudalism beginning to form.

That depends on which neighbors you are talking about. The Sassanids were rocking more advanced technology, but the barbarians along the Rhine and the Danube were still relatively primative.

So the best tactic to bring USA to it's knees is a war of attrition.

Except they weren't faster or more technologically sophisticated, they were just regular legions. The difference being that where during the early empire legions were stationed all across the empire, often at the borders, the later emperors gathered them together deeper inside the empire so they could be more easily controlled (again, because generals had a tendency of couping the government). Their equipment and tactics were not much different from what they were centuries ago. Cavalry still only formed a small part of the army (cataphracts only became a big thing after the split, and then only for the eastern empire - which happens to be the one that didn't fall).
Uhh, no fam. Auxiliaries was just what they called their non-citizen infantry, which were integrated into the legions.
If what you mean by primitive is using similar weapons, armour, shields, and having better cavalry, then yes. The only advantage the empire had was size and organisation, and none of that mattered when the empire was practically falling apart on it's own.
Like I said, it's a stupid analogy

They are quickly developing drone technologies that turn wars of attrition into boring office jobs.

Yes, just so long as it is actually against Americans and not their proxies. Remember that they do not have to pay a dime to arm an Iraqi soldier. On the contrary, they make a profit off of selling weapons to them.

The American military is not built to handle lengthy conflicts, but it is built to wipe any organized resistence off the field in quick order. Theoretically, a drawn out shooting war would cause their system to collapse, but the problem is that remaining a cohesive military for long enough in the face of the American onslaught is difficult to imagine. Durrilla war accomplishes nothing, as it allows the Americans to just sit in the cities and occasionally drop bombs on the starving guys with rifles in the hills. Essentially, you need a huge conventional military that can actually not get swept from the skies in two days and is immune to nukes for some reason. Such a military does not currently exist.

However, a large insurrection in the United States itself would eliminate several of the advantages that the American military has. They could not simply use cheap proxies to absorb casualties. They could not bomb them to oblivion. They could not just leave the insurrectionists in the hills and ignore them. They could not slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands without tearing the guts out of their own economy. Only Americans can defeat America.

The smaller unit thing was, among other things, an adaptation to the depopulation the empire experienced during the third and fourth centuries.

I've heard similar, but I haven't seen anything substantive regarding that. Judging by all the slimy fucks involved though, I don't doubt it.

I have to disagree. Those tactics might be keeping Afghanistan from tumbling completely from their hands, but it's not winning them the war, and in fact have come close several times to being overrun. If there was ever any sort of crisis that significantly tied up American air support, their little outposts and garrisons would be sitting ducks.

he said
comrade. Or do you think Smedley T. Butler's a piece of shit too?

Also this.


That's because they don't want to "win". Endless war is the goal, for the profit of the military-industrial-media-gov-banking-complex. They even have this concept of the "long war" AKA perpetual war


Also this.

I don't think so. They were pretty anti-war when Iraq was getting started even under intense propaganda; in fact Obomber ran on an anti-war platform because people were sick of it… and only managed to launch more wars by "leading from behind". People are not dumb, they know war is a massive waste of money that could be spent elsewhere.

the moment they ramp up propaganda 200% is when you'll see all the mass anti-war people come out. Do you think liberal idpol millenials would be pro dying in a war if they got drafted? They only support muh "humanitarian" war because someone else is doing the killing and they are not there personally to witness the true atrocity it is. In vietnam people only got the news that were given to them and stories from those returning; they didn't have internet and cellphones…

This is why since nam most american wars are run by proxy, and why they're really into drones and killer bots.

What do you think made infantry faster before the carbon combustion engine was invented? Lighter and better gear. Compare the image of the Roman soldier in the previous post with this picture of a Roman soldier from the early Empire. Notice the heavy plates on the older soldier, the enormous shield, the sandals. The younger soldier wears a mail jacket, carries a lighter and more practical shield, and has a pair of shoes on his feet. That sort of thing makes a tremendous difference to a soldier. As the gear changed so too did battle formations. The primative shield walls of the early Empire gave way to the more modern shield walls that would dominate the battlefield for centuries afterward.

Centralized control was only part of the reason. The other was military necessity. After the Antonine Constitution was enacted, the legions were expected to cover a lot more ground. For that reason the comitatenses were created, and emperors who followed Gallienus–particularly Diocletian and Constantine–emphasized that strategy of starting away from the frontier and rapidly moving to whatever trouble spots arose.

Oh, yes they were. Guys with spears and shields do not all fight the same way.

They hardly formed any part of it at all before Domitian allowed the equites to hold military positions that had previously only been available to senators. Their role only expanded as time went on. Before long, it was not just the emperor's personal provinces that were goverened by cavalry officers.

Exactly. Auxiliaries were military units, often hastily-formed, that were raised in the provinces by client kings and such. The only difference between them and the units that you were talking about is that the latter units were composed of "Romans," which by then meant everyone in the Empire who was not a slave. They were the same thing, just with the title of "legion."

If you are talking about the Ostrogoths and not the Marcomani or the Suebi maybe.

For that reason it is a perfect analogy. When do you think that the Romans realized that the Empire was done for? I would say centuries after Romulus Augustulus retired. Their system had been spinning apart for a long time, just like the American Empire is. For that reason it is an apt analogy.

The Americans do not give a flying fuck about controlling all of Afghanistan, and they have never even bothered to try. The durrillas in the mountains are accomplishing nothing by being there. The Americans will leave when they are done with Bagram and not a moment before.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE

If only they knew that war is a necessary function of neoliberalism.

United States of American would win versus any single nation on Earth…except the humans accessing the eternal life technologies.

The United States Americans are currently accessing one of these technologies: aldehyde-stabilized cryogenic preservation. They will only become more fearsome once they force this technology to their warriors whose brains are decomposing.

The United States Americans do not lack leadership. The United States Americans are unwilling to cooperate with many of the other Americans (a United States American is an American; an American is not a United States American except while the American is a United Statesman). United States Americans tend to lack a means or a willing to work with those with tattoos on their faces, scheduled drug use, or history of doing crime…yet these humans and their acquaintances, friends, and family are equipped and educated enough that they are one of the greatest militaries of their technology tier (tier: those not accessing eternal life technologies).


United States Americans lack planet, "Marse". The United States Americans lack planet, "Venera". The United States Americans lack any significant military further from the surface of planet, "Earth" than moon, "Luna".

The United States Americans are essentially a Republic of North Korea of their tier. There is a greater, "United States of America" surrounding Earth, and this group is not, "United States Americans".


Know no. The reason life at American is fucked is because American's justice is compromised by their being an inferior civilization of humans. Since the United States Americans do not acknowledge their situation…thus they waste countless opportunities to make life better.

dude did you ever look into david ike???????? read the unabomber's manifesto????????? the truth is out there…………… O_o

Know no, I have not viewed these matters.

Yes, the truth is out here. I am an ancient human.

Possibly, but that obviously isn't what most people see as a "win."


I'm aware of endless war for endless peace, but I think in this case it was more short shortsightedness and a want to extort resources.

There are win conditions for the people in power. The money advantage is obvious for them but from the perspective of the every day average citizen of the offending country and those attacked the goal is not so clear, so by most peoples definition these wars are a "failure" even if the people in power got exactly what they want. So that's what I was explaining the problem is not with the tech or the military people on the ground, the problem with the us military is unclear or false objectives objectives in terms of the things average people would see as a "win."

I think you are very correct. There might not be riots, though, depending of whether or not there is am increase of the number of representatives of congress during the same time as a military draft is instated.

Is this new copypasta?


Most people don't matter. They have no say over what the military does. Most people do not want the kind of imperialism that the American government practices. They have no understanding of how a capitalist economy works. Always remember that the state–and by extension the military–is a tool of the ruling class alone. As far as the ruling class is concerned, "Mission Accomplished."

Pretty good?

Next time I would text a change of the first paragraph: United States Americans would win versus any single nation on Earth…except versus the humans accessing the eternal life technologies.

The lorica segmentata, which is what the picture shows, was rare even during the period in which it was used, and it wasn't really heavier than a shirt of mail (lorica hamata) which the legionaries used throughout the entire history of the roman empire. Furthermore, most of the weight of the legionnaire's equipment when marching came their camping gear and supplies, which they all carried (in fact the legionaries were famous for carrying most of their supplies and equipment themselves rather than on, say, carts, which allowed the army to move faster). The weight of the armour doesn't have much impact on your marching speed, since the weight is distributed and usually never amounts to a significant fraction of the person's weight (medieval plate armour is usually weighted at around 20-30 lbs, and mail armour weighs something similar - depending on the coverage and density of the mail). The shield they used is also lighter than it looks, due to how it's made (which also made it more expensive, hence the switch to flat oval and round shields, which were also what was used during the Republic). The gear of the legionnaire just didn't change that much, and this:
Is just plain bullshit. A wall of shields is a wall of shields regardless of the shield or time period. The late Romans didn't make any innovations in that regard, and all the fancy "formations" they used were just drilled, regimented ways of doing things that are obvious to do when you have a big fucking shield.
Form a line, march to enemy line, throw stuff, charge, fight a little, regroup, repeat. That's how Roman infantry fought, which they copied from the samnites back in the days of the early Republic. Before that they fought in a phalanx, which basically means form a line, march up to enemy line, stabbity-stab until one of you breaks formation and runs away. Those were the ways infantry fought from the bronze age to the age of gunpowder, with slight variations, and the late-Roman era didn't see any revolutions in that kind of fighting.
Except auxiliaries were integrated into the legion and formed practically all the skirmishers and cavalry of the Roman army. They weren't just border levies.
No, I am also talking about the Germanic tribes, who used very similar kinds of swords, shields, spears and armour whose warrior-class created the foundation for the medieval knight. By the time of the late Roman empire they were certainly not 'primitives' and it's doubtful the barbarians ever were 'primitives' compared to the Romans considering they stole all their military innovations from them (starting with the Greeks and the Samnites).
Big bloated empires tend to collapse due to their own internal contradictions, you are truly a great historian.

You guys realise riot pigs still use that Roman shield-wall formation thing?

If they don't give a fuck then what's with this troop surge

lmao what the fuck they're literally METAL BAWKSES

Humans get fatigued when the carry weights over long distances. Any added weight forces a person to expend more energy and thus adds to the rate at which a person becomes fatigued. Fatigue slows a person down and forces them to rest more frequently. That is why light infantry is a thing.

You can't be serious. Holy fuck me, why is it that so many otherwise decent historians have this gigantic yawning gap where millitary theory should be? You would think that the Marxists would be different with their base-superstructure analysis, but they are frustratingly not. It drives me nuts.

A shield is not a shield is not a shield. Why do you think they changed their shapes? Aesthetics? A shield's shape determines how tight battle formations have to be. They affect how flexible your shield wall can be. Different shields allow you to fight differently, which makes changing them important when the opponents that you will be fighting change.

Here is a good place to start if you actually want to know how Roman infantry fought.

academia.edu/32352832/Later_Roman_Battle_Tactics

And the late-empire locally-raised units in their totality just carried the name "legion."

They were not one monolithic block, nor did they all use the same tactics.

they stole all their military innovations from them (starting with the Greeks and the Samnites)
Archaeologists debunked the theory that the Romans stole their early tactics from the Samnites. They had been using the same equipment prior to the war, and the same equipment means the same tactics.

And you are not nearly as good a historian as you think you are.

We should take away their metal boxes.

t. Colin Powell

Who knows? Trump wants to prove that he has a big dick? The CIA needs help securing it's opium crops? The Afghan proxies need to have the fear of God put in them?

I suppose it would be a good time to ask the question of how you gauge wither or not a war has been "won" or "lost"

For example, there is a general consensus that America lost the war in Vietnam, but when we consider this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Đổi_mới
Would it be safe to say America actually did win the war through economic warfare in the longrun? It seems as though the US Government realized waging economic warfare was a more effective strategy than boots on the ground, it just took a bit longer to accomplish the primary objective

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a war has been either "successful" or "unsuccessful." If Porky initiates the war to accomplish a specific goal (eg. flood the world with oil, have a gigantic air base in Central Asia, force the Vietnamese to provide resources and labor) then accomplishing that goal must mean that the war was successful even if the army that invaded turned around and left. Does having your own flag flying over your sweatshop mean that you won? I say hell no.

It was not even just the Americans. The Chinese exploited the fuck out of Vietnam after the Americans left. They are still bleeding Vietnam white.

How the fuck is anyone supposed to know this? The only way is to wait for the results of WW3

Yes

Yeah you know like those dozens of pounds of extra gear that they carried around while marching. The speed of the human isn't the limiting factor on how quickly an army can move, logistics is, which the Romans alleviated by having the soldiers carry all the shit. And the gear of the late Roman legionnaire is no lighter than the gear of the early Roman legionnaire. Mail is fucking heavy, and both used it (so did everyone else).
Except light infantry during ancient times never operated alone, but as skirmishers ahead of the main army. Their purpose was to throw missiles and screen the army, after which they fell back because they were not at all equipped to fight in a line. Roman legionnaires were always heavy infantry, and their gear was heavy whether they wore mail or plate or scale.
Except in the case of the Romans it definitely is. Yes, there's a pretty big difference in how you use a big-ass shield and, say, a buckler, but not in how you use a big-ass oval shield or a big-ass square shield or a big-ass round shield. When fighting in formation, the tactic will still be "form some kind of wall", and as
shows, that shit is fucking universal. The Romans weren't innovators in that regard, they just did the same shit they'd done for centuries and the same shit all the other infantry with big-ass shields were doing and had always done because THAT'S HOW YOU FIGHT WITH BIG SHIELDS WHEN YOU'RE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE.
I just explained, because of the expense of making those fancy convex square shields. And it's not like that was a very big deal, they just went back to the kinds of shields they used during the Republic.
You sound like someone who doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about. How can a shield wall be flexible? It's a wall of shields. If people move around, it's no longer a wall of shields. Any tight formation is by its nature inflexible or it would no longer be tight. Formations were as tight as they could be while still allowing the soldier room to fight, it was not dictated by the shape of the shield.
Except the shields weren't different. The shape was different but the size and weight of the shield was the same. Now, the shape of a shield and how it's held can make a difference in open-order fighting (there are some fancy things you can do with a round shield that you can't do with a square or oval shield), but not in close-order fighting (the interlocking shields thing that round shields do is just to compensate for how easy they are to turn, and the Germans did it before the Romans).
Yeah, I read it, and it pretty much confirms what I just said. In the example battle they formed a line (in this case three lines, which the text even states is similar to the formation they used during the Republic), marched up close to the enemy, exchanged missiles, charged, fought, and were later reinforced by the back line, repeat. The text even mentions how the Roman cavalry was routed by the 'primitive' Germans.
Yes fam, I know, but I'm not gonna mention every single German tribe who used similar swords, shields, armour, etc, because they all did. If you put a Roman legionnaire next to a wealthy German warrior of practically any tribe, or even next to a Republican-era soldier wearing a lorica hamata, they will look very similar.
All that means is just that they copied their tactics earlier, not that they somehow invented them independent of the neighbouring tribe right next to them. The Romans had always been influenced by their neighbours, starting with the Samnites and Etruscans, just like every other tribe and civilization.
Well yes, I'm not a historian. Neither are you. But I'm not the one making shitty historical analogies while repeating stupid memes like scale mail and the idea that mail is somehow lighter than plate (it isn't, both use roughly the same amount of metal, since they cover similar areas), or pretending that the equipment of the Roman soldier is not exactly the same as wealthy German warriors (the difference being that the Empire had the industry to equip all their soldiers that way).

Fuck me I want to kill myself just from watching that. Hyperactive as fuck.

Why the fuck are people debating ancient tactics in the age of guns and electronic technology?

Are antifa just medieval LARPers wanting to fight riotpig shieldwalls with sticks and stones and molotovs and get batoned to feel primitive?

Because if you put two historians with knowledge of a particular subject in a room they invariably begin arguing vigorously over some irellevent thing. No shit. Historians are like philosophers.

Because we're /his/tory pedants

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you blew it

Roger Roger