jimboston wrote:bigtoughralf wrote:saxitoxin wrote:bigtoughralf wrote:The US has no capacity to fight China in China tbh.
SERIOUSLY?
-
The USA defeated a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan-
The USA defeated 500 cosplayers from Missouri and Oklahoma on January 6-The USA defeated 73 year-old Peter Navarro from trying to board an airplane
obviously USA is super-powerful
It is interesting how the US has managed to built this mythology of it having some sort of badass mega army despite endless evidence to the contrary. For example, polls have shown
how successful US propaganda has been in slowly persuading people that the US was responsible for winning WW2 even though few outside of the States thought that in the immediate aftermath of the war.
The US military is basically built on bullying tinpot regimes with small armies of conscripts and one working helicopter, but talks itself up as if it's Thanos the destroyer of worlds. The only time it's ever taken on a major power head to head by itself was fighting China in the Korean War, when it got pushed halfway down the peninsula before digging in and forcing a stalemate. And that was back when China's army was basically just a load of farmers who'd been given rifles. Imagine what would happen if the US tried to fight the China of 2022. Or, when Kamala puts out a statement declaring Taipei to be the capital of the People's Republic, just watch what happens when the US actually does fight the China of 2023.
The UK would’ve sued for peace against Hitler if they didn’t have the military support of the US via Lend-Lease Act.
That was arms trafficking, not combat competence.
Ralf is right here and that's why I support U.S. neutrality and non-intervention as, for whatever reason, we've historically shown we're largely incapable of engaging in military operations outside of North America on a significant scale. This is probably because of the high politicization of senior military leadership. Going into WW2 it was believed by both the British and Germans that American general officers were more-or-less incompetent and Hitler dismissed American "political generals" like Eisenhower. The U.S. acquitted itself decently simply because it had superior industrial and manufacturing infrastructure to Europe, not superior forces.
The U.S.' victories come in wars that have already been more-or-less won by others (WW1), or when it can deploy superior technology against a backwards adversary (e.g. Spanish American War; the Spanish Navy in the Philippines was still using wooden hulled vessels), or when it can engage in irregular warfare (e.g. Revolution). Maneuver warfare is just not America's forte.
In Federalist No. 8, Alexander Hamilton even wrote that the United States needed a national government precisely because Americans were more-or-less incompetent at conducting war and had a tendency to bumble their way into conflicts they couldn't finish.
Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-paper ... r-25493266
