Slashdot Mirror

Farmers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, and industrial workers are more likely to die on the job than an average military member.

You do realize that statement becomes wildly, ludicrously, (almost) humorously false during combat right?

Well the US haven't fought any real military opposition since the Vietnam war and used a lot of local cannon fodder on the ground so the average military member has been pretty safe. If I tally the combat deaths listed here from 1980 to today I get 6229 or ~130/year. This site says the US has ~1.3 million active duty military personnel. So the risk of dying "on the job" is currently around 0.01%/year, obviously quite unevenly distributed but still ridiculously low for being the military. Of course if some real powder keg goes off those statistics could go out the window real fast...

Someone let Canada know that they are not a global power in a position to make rules for the rest of the world to live by... They have 35 million citizens (less than California or about 10% that of the US), their GDP is $1.5T (California is $2.5T for about the same population) and they are ranked 25th in military power (behind North Korea, Poland and Taiwan) http://www.globalfirepower.com...

Google is a US company doing business in Canada, and unless they want to get in a pissing match with the US they need to get a US court order if they want to reach beyond their national borders. Google needs to get the state department to inform Canada that they have no jurisdiction outside of Canada and Canada sure as hell can't censor a US company on it's own.

The America hating around the world has always bothered me with it's irrationality. It is akin to having a bodyguard protect you for decades, get shot and bleed for you, ask only that you treat them with respect, and they pay you (through imbalanced trade deals or outright foreign aid) for the pleasure... The deal the civilized world has had with the US for 70 plus years has been extraordinary. I guess the asshole attitude towards the US has finally reached the US citizens, because now we have Trump, and he seems fixated on making every country pay its own way for defense and on balancing the trade deals. I guess the saying really is true, you don't appreciate how good you had it until you lose it.

The whole BS about corporate profits is just a canard used by small minds to justify the unjustifiable. US corporate profits are a side effect of accepting people from everywhere into the US and judging based on the worth of their ideas. The US is the largest stabilizing influence in the world. US companies are profitable because we invent and create useful products and services and come up with good ideas. We rightly want to protect those from pirating, just as Australia and every other country does of it's products and ideas. Why should the US be judged on a different basis than your home country when it comes to IP or commercial products?

A few thoughts on a war with the Chinese:
The Chinese outnumber you 58:1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Chinese are #2 in global firepower, Australia is #23 http://www.globalfirepower.com...

China is on the other side of the planet from the US (literally). They are just about in your back yard. The Chinese want to become the lone super power and dominate the planet (sorry, that is just the truth). They also believe that they are the master race and everyone else are savages. Does this sound familiar yet, something like Germany and Poland around 1936? http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/...

If we wind up with a global war with China, it will be because it was inevitable due to their above stated goals (which are no secret). If it happens before they are ready to implement all of the military specs and tech they stole from the US over the last 8 years, so much the better for the world. Your complete ignorance and lack of understanding of geopolitics is breathtaking, considering you would probably be in the first wave of those killed or subjugated and sent to work the the Chinese military factories or concentration camps, while your wives and daughters would be taken as prizes by the 25 million surplus Chinese men who can't find a woman in China, to be used as a (sub human in their culture) substitute... The US could probably win in a prolonged war with China while Australia would cease to exist in a few days without US support.

Actually, the citizens of NZ and AU greatly benefit from good relations with the US. Consider what would happen if the US blocked all trading between the US and those states. What would happen to their economies? How many popular movies, games and software come from the US, not to mention physical goods from US companies? Consider if the US pulled all of our carrier groups back to US assets. What would happen between NZ and AU and China? I hope you can speak Mandarin, with your large amount of desirable real estate (Australia) and tiny population/military (24M people and #23 in military firepower, China and Russia are #2&3 in terms of military and China outnumbers you 58:1, NZ doesn't even make the lists...) Both NZ and AU have a lot to lose pissing of the US over a single citizen who clearly broke laws and committed crimes in the US and basically gave the US the finger when we told him to stop.

http://www.globalfirepower.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Looking at a criminal being extradited to the US who stole and incurred real financial harm in the millions of dollars to a friendly state who provides a massive amount of protection from bad actors like China for many small neighboring countries like AU and NZ as well as providing significant trading benefits is short sighted at best... All the America haters out there, your alternatives are China or Russia depending on where you live. The US has fostered peace, freedom and economic growth for 70 years, both China and Russia have murdered millions of their own citizens in that same time frame (Soviet Russia killed between 15 and 61 million people in that time frame, Communist China killed at least 65 million, and if you think they will treat you better if you side with them over the US, you are sadly mistaken). 5 minutes after the US ceases to be a threat to Chinese world domination, one of the most racist countries on the planet (China) will wipe you out (or enslave you) and resettle some of its population to your cities and towns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/...

I will leave the discussion on liberals for another time, since what I describe has been exclusively my experience in dealing with them. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe you are one, but the exceptions don't make (or break) the rule.

Regarding an armed conflict with China, you made my point. The US is not going to start a shooting war with China. The US is not in the business of starting wars, we react to defend ourselves and our allies. If China were to start a shooting war, it would end badly for them http://www.globalfirepower.com... as long as we don't run out of munitions (which I am pretty sure we will not). I ignored the fact that China would also be facing every NATO ally, as well as the JSDF locally http://www.globalfirepower.com... , and just about every other country in the Asian Pacific except for North Korea. The Chinese have been pissing off everyone around them with their attempted expansions in the South China Seas. The point I was making was that it is still in China's best interest to get along with the US, even though they may now have to play on an even playing field economically.

I will leave the discussion on liberals for another time, since what I describe has been exclusively my experience in dealing with them. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe you are one, but the exceptions don't make (or break) the rule.

Regarding an armed conflict with China, you made my point. The US is not going to start a shooting war with China. The US is not in the business of starting wars, we react to defend ourselves and our allies. If China were to start a shooting war, it would end badly for them http://www.globalfirepower.com... as long as we don't run out of munitions (which I am pretty sure we will not). I ignored the fact that China would also be facing every NATO ally, as well as the JSDF locally http://www.globalfirepower.com... , and just about every other country in the Asian Pacific except for North Korea. The Chinese have been pissing off everyone around them with their attempted expansions in the South China Seas. The point I was making was that it is still in China's best interest to get along with the US, even though they may now have to play on an even playing field economically.

It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if the other guy can't find you, target you, or shoot at you.

Exactly. The F35 will be fine as long as we assume that our adversaries are completely incapable of innovation. The Chinese would certainly never think to stick a $5 optical camera and an ANN in the nose of a SAM and track using visible light.

What would the range on that shit be? With the human eye it would probably be a couple miles, the distance of the horizon is probably a theoretical maximum, but that depends largely on your elevation (at sea level it's 2.9 miles), but let's say that we're at 50k ft, which seems to be the service ceiling. That's 15,240 metres. Wiki's formula is d km= 3.57h m, so 441 or so km. So that works. You got a visual sensor that can tell a 10m by 16m triangle-shaped thing at 441 km from a seagull's tail at 350 km? They're all the same color (gray), on a background which is probably grayish clouds, estimating range with visuals is a huge pain in the ass, etc. I'll gladly agree that the whole F-35 plan is stupid. If your missile shoots off after the seagull it'll but rocket fuel at the rate you usually burn rocket fuel at, and by the time it figures out "shit I'm going for a seagull's ass" you're never gonna get it back.

The point with that isn't that it's impossible they'll figure out a way top track the fucker down. Human ingenuity being what it is, somebody will pull that shit off eventually. The point is that getting that shit to scale to the point you can actually use that militarily is a huge fucking pain-in-the-ass, and not likely to happen for awhile. First-gen Stealth, for example, got cracked pretty much as soon as we invented it, yet in 25 years of service precisely one guy pulled it off in combat.

Moreover, you're missing the best part of the program: we're getting thousands of them (680 Navy and Marines, and 1,763 for the Air Force). That's less planescombat aircraft then every country in the world except China and the Russians. So I will not be surporised if 30 years from now the Chinese have enough toys to deal with a couple hundred F-35s, and the Russians enough to deal with a dozen or two, but 2,443? Hell fucking no.

Idiot, try reading. Reducing funding more than the next 8 largest militaries isn't disbanding it, rather forcing an efficiency on existing processes. There is a lot of waste in all of the US armed forces. See here .

The US would happily increase cooperation with Russia if only Russia would stop sabre rattling.

Actually, the USA has over 1,000 military bases abroad - many of them in Asia, as close as possible to the frontiers of Russia, China, and Iran. Not to mention its 11 (give or take) massive carrier battle groups which prowl the oceans to intimidate other nations.

Russia has, from memory, three or four small military bases outside its own borders. Apart from Syria, where it is fighting terrorism (because someone has to, and the USA isn't) they are all in friendly nations next door to Russia itself - Belarus, Armenia, etc.

When the USA sails its carrier battle groups or other naval units a few miles from Russia and China, in waters many thousands of miles away from the USA, that isn't sabre-rattling.
When the USA organizes "NATO" military exercises that involve large numbers of soldiers and weapons parading around a few miles from Russia, that isn't sabre-rattling.
When the USA places German tanks as close to St Petersburg as they were in autumn 1941, that isn't sabre-rattling.
When the USA places missile stations that could, without anyone knowing, be equipped to fire offensive nuclear missiles, within a few miles of Russia that isn't sabre-rattling. (Although it is exactly equivalent to the Soviet actions to prevent which President Kennedy precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis).

But when the Russians or Chinese calmly announce the measures they have taken to defend themselves, or when they conduct military exercises entirely within their own borders - THAT is apparently sabre-rattling.

See http://www.globalfirepower.com.... Clue: Russia is the 5th-ranked in military spending, slightly below the UK. Its spending is less than one twelfth of the USA's.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/p...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"do what's needed?" just like the invasion of the Ruhr by France after WWI when the Germans stopped payments?

Unfortunately for the Germans the Greeks have the same amount of active soldiers and a lot more military hardware than they do. So if tried that they would just get their butts kicked.

http://www.globalfirepower.com...

1.Compare North Korea to South Korea and you will see that including reserves North Korea out matches South Korea. The US has about 29k troops there. That is meaningless if the North decides to attack.

2. It is not the only thing but it may be a deciding factor.

3. Combining Egypt and Jordan they have 539Ktroops. Part of that billions in armaments is landmines. The US may come to help but it would take time. I doubt any other country would come. They have never in the past. Even the US have never had boots on the ground in Israel in an invasion of Israel.

You have no idea what mines do or how they work. Their job is not to kill but to slow the enemy down and funnel them into killing areas where other assets like artillery does the killing.

As for international backlash. it sure has worked well for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Backlash is only important if it has teeth and no one wants to stand up for other countries.

1.Compare North Korea to South Korea and you will see that including reserves North Korea out matches South Korea. The US has about 29k troops there. That is meaningless if the North decides to attack.

2. It is not the only thing but it may be a deciding factor.

3. Combining Egypt and Jordan they have 539Ktroops. Part of that billions in armaments is landmines. The US may come to help but it would take time. I doubt any other country would come. They have never in the past. Even the US have never had boots on the ground in Israel in an invasion of Israel.

You have no idea what mines do or how they work. Their job is not to kill but to slow the enemy down and funnel them into killing areas where other assets like artillery does the killing.

As for international backlash. it sure has worked well for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Backlash is only important if it has teeth and no one wants to stand up for other countries.

The U.S. Navy is less than half the size of China's and a bit smaller than the Russian navy - there are at least a dozen countries with navies at least half as big as the U.S. Navy.

Source: http://www.globalfirepower.com...

What, is France gonna send in its army? LMFAO!

That joke is getting stale.

http://www.globalfirepower.com...

Is the US vastly superior?

Globalfirepower rank them about the same, though they include a lot of factors, but shouldn't all those be included?

Sure the US have twice as many people and earn more money (but it's much more unevenly spread and less end up in the government coffins) and spend more money on the military (then again I don't know whatever Russia pay them and if so I guess they pay less and that more production may be government owned or at least be bought for cheaper.)

US seem to have bigger navy and air force and Russia bigger army. Who got the best missile defence? Anti-air?

Even if US is better what are their odds at Russian soil? Because if we are speaking fear of the bully I guess that's where it would be thought?

Many of the US project seem to deliver so-so and cost way more than what was originally planned.

I know lots of people say Russia got old gear but how much truth is there in that? Even if they do how much is newer? How much is newer in the US?

Do F-35 really beat the better models from Russia? Is F-22 clearly superior? I assume the F-15, F-16 and F-18 maybe is more cost effective?

I don't know whatever the SM-2, SM-3 and the S-300, S-400 and S-500 gear/systems is of similar scale but how are they really performing against each others?

I don't really know the composition of either sides nuclear weapons.

How hard is it to sink a carrier? How efficient is the total anti-missile and possibly torpedo defence in a carrier group?

Who win on the ground?
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

I assume the US may rely on missiles from ships and air-force and sure air-plane vs artillery may be a battle with an advantage to the air-plane but this being Russia how many missiles will actually hit and how well would the planes do? Throw in a bunch of submarines in the equation too.

If you count reserve troops North Korea has the largest army in the world. They have a huge supply of missiles pointed at our allies in South Korea (with the second-largest army in the world). The entire nation is like a giant military base.

While North Korea's technology is antiquated, Global Fire Power still ranks them 29th in the world. They rank higher than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and many other nations. What did it take for the US to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? How successful was it?

Nah, I'm just hard pressed to pick a country that would actually attempt an invasion of the US. China is the most capable. If I had to wager between China invading the CONUS, or aliens landing in Times Square ... well ... aliens are more likely. :)

But lets look at some numbers for military strength, if to see who could attempt such a thing.

The US has the largest airforce, with China being #2. That's followed by Russia, India, Iran and North Korea.

China outnumbers the US in active military., but the US is #2. That's followed by India, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea.

Budget is significantly different by country. The US overwhelms this category. The US spends $689B. China spends $129B. That is followed by Russia, France, UK, and Japan.

Some of that is likely skewed by expenses. The US has stuff like aircraft carriers built *in* the US. China has been buying theirs used, and now has 3 in the works being done in China. As we all know, labor and materials is a lot cheaper there than here.

Honestly, that brings us back to drunk rednecks, or a small group of domestic terrorists. They *could* cause a lot of isolated damage. They could break an awful lot of stuff in a relatively confined area. Even if they took control over an area, which is amazingly doubtful, they wouldn't hold it for long. It would be a very short revolution.

Something to remember about any group, either a group of domestic terrorists, or a country trying to invade. The United States is a lot stronger than it's military. There are approx 1.5M active military personnel. There are approx 22M military veterans. There are approx 300M firearms in civilian hands. That makes for an awful lot of armed civilians with training, and untrained armed civilians to go with them. It's not good odds for an aggressor, no matter how you look at it.

I'd still be willing to wager that it will eventually be tied to drunk rednecks. :)

Nah, I'm just hard pressed to pick a country that would actually attempt an invasion of the US. China is the most capable. If I had to wager between China invading the CONUS, or aliens landing in Times Square ... well ... aliens are more likely. :)

But lets look at some numbers for military strength, if to see who could attempt such a thing.

The US has the largest airforce, with China being #2. That's followed by Russia, India, Iran and North Korea.

China outnumbers the US in active military., but the US is #2. That's followed by India, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea.

Budget is significantly different by country. The US overwhelms this category. The US spends $689B. China spends $129B. That is followed by Russia, France, UK, and Japan.

Some of that is likely skewed by expenses. The US has stuff like aircraft carriers built *in* the US. China has been buying theirs used, and now has 3 in the works being done in China. As we all know, labor and materials is a lot cheaper there than here.

Honestly, that brings us back to drunk rednecks, or a small group of domestic terrorists. They *could* cause a lot of isolated damage. They could break an awful lot of stuff in a relatively confined area. Even if they took control over an area, which is amazingly doubtful, they wouldn't hold it for long. It would be a very short revolution.

Something to remember about any group, either a group of domestic terrorists, or a country trying to invade. The United States is a lot stronger than it's military. There are approx 1.5M active military personnel. There are approx 22M military veterans. There are approx 300M firearms in civilian hands. That makes for an awful lot of armed civilians with training, and untrained armed civilians to go with them. It's not good odds for an aggressor, no matter how you look at it.

I'd still be willing to wager that it will eventually be tied to drunk rednecks. :)

Nah, I'm just hard pressed to pick a country that would actually attempt an invasion of the US. China is the most capable. If I had to wager between China invading the CONUS, or aliens landing in Times Square ... well ... aliens are more likely. :)

But lets look at some numbers for military strength, if to see who could attempt such a thing.

The US has the largest airforce, with China being #2. That's followed by Russia, India, Iran and North Korea.

China outnumbers the US in active military., but the US is #2. That's followed by India, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea.

Budget is significantly different by country. The US overwhelms this category. The US spends $689B. China spends $129B. That is followed by Russia, France, UK, and Japan.

Some of that is likely skewed by expenses. The US has stuff like aircraft carriers built *in* the US. China has been buying theirs used, and now has 3 in the works being done in China. As we all know, labor and materials is a lot cheaper there than here.

Honestly, that brings us back to drunk rednecks, or a small group of domestic terrorists. They *could* cause a lot of isolated damage. They could break an awful lot of stuff in a relatively confined area. Even if they took control over an area, which is amazingly doubtful, they wouldn't hold it for long. It would be a very short revolution.

Something to remember about any group, either a group of domestic terrorists, or a country trying to invade. The United States is a lot stronger than it's military. There are approx 1.5M active military personnel. There are approx 22M military veterans. There are approx 300M firearms in civilian hands. That makes for an awful lot of armed civilians with training, and untrained armed civilians to go with them. It's not good odds for an aggressor, no matter how you look at it.

I'd still be willing to wager that it will eventually be tied to drunk rednecks. :)

Can someone explain to me what it is that gives such a small country that has comparably weak military (they are ranked number 28 in the world according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [globalfirepower.com]) and pretty much zero chance of surviving a week in a real war the balls to be so dickish and war-hungry?

Basically, having a gun (well, one of the world's largest concentrations of conventional artillery, more precisely) to South Korea's head (capital). Plus the nukes don't hurt, but its mostly the gun-to-the-head.

Can someone explain to me what it is that gives such a small country that has comparably weak military (they are ranked number 28 in the world according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [globalfirepower.com]) and pretty much zero chance of surviving a week in a real war the balls to be so dickish and war-hungry?

Look up Seoul's population, then find it on a map.

Can someone explain to me what it is that gives such a small country that has comparably weak military (they are ranked number 28 in the world according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp) and pretty much zero chance of surviving a week in a real war the balls to be so dickish and war-hungry?

It keeps working.

Can someone explain to me what it is that gives such a small country that has comparably weak military (they are ranked number 28 in the world according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp) and pretty much zero chance of surviving a week in a real war the balls to be so dickish and war-hungry?

Are they really THAT brainwashed and misinformed (or uninformed) as to believe that they can just threaten nuclear war every time they don't get their way? It's like a little kid threatening to run away every time he has to eat his broccoli.

The only scary thing here is that sometimes, very rarely, the little kid DOES run away for an hour or so. Well, I hope for the sake of any innocent people in North Korea that this little boy doesn't run away, and instead learns to shut the fuck up and eat his broccoli.

North Korea has 70 submarines (the US has 71):
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea

I'm wondering if we're tracking all of them, or even able to track them. Sure, they're probably old and what not, but if we're not tracking them, one could be sent into a port... unless we have some kind of submarine fence/detection system?

Still, an undetected sub could leave North Korea with a nuke and then hijack a cargo ship from a US friendly country, transferring the nuke to the ship.

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

Well let's see what the statistics say.

What's the major threat of Indonesia? Seem to be top us here in Sweden.

But I see now you're ranked #18 against our #28 over at:
http://globalfirepower.com/
Total Population: 245,613,043 [2011]
Damn =P
Defense Budget: $4,740,000,000 [2011]

Seem like our defence budget is higher (but then services it buy are likely more expensive?)
    Defense Budget: $5,500,000,000 [2011]

Your purchasing power is higher.

When the Chinese outnumber the United States, militarily by nearly 2:1 and in terms of raw population, by over 4:1, the only advantage the US has over China is technologically. That said, China easily outperforms the US military-industrial complex in arms production, and with her next door neighbour India (who has the strange habit of aligning with whomever serves her political ambition best - during the Cold War it was the USSR, lately it's been the EU and US) adding another billion or so heads, the US could find herself alone in the World (with the possible exception of her lapdog, the UK) and facing down three billion very angry people.

What the US does have, which should be cause for concern for every single person on the planet, is one-button access to the largest consolidated nuclear arsenal the World has ever seen. They want to talk about terrorism? How about "You're not allowed to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes but we'll just keep these multi-megaton warheads pointed at your Capital cities".

I don't understand how the entire country can be having this conversation about reducing spending without any mention of the defense budget. Last time I checked it was nearly twice all other federal discretionary spending combined, without even counting the wars. And it's still massively disproportionate to the rest of the world. Seriously. No mention of it, at all, on news, radio, or paper? Not even NPR? I don't get it.

Japan doesn't have much of a military

Actually, Japan's military spending is the sixth most in the world, and not that far behind China's. Those constitutional clauses are observed mainly in the breach.

That's complete bullshit.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Sweden

Defense Budget: $7,000,000,000 [2008]

Fit for Military Service: 3,336,983 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 34,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 262,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 38,650 [2008]

Total Land-Based Weapons: 540
Total Aircraft: 744 [2003]
Helicopters: 150 [2003]
Total Navy Ships: 77

Good luck with that.

Sure we've lowered military budget and defenses since the end of the Soviet union but it would still be a bitch for them to actually take over anything.

The current government also added 20,000 more police men/women.

I would agree upon that we should use the police and/or military to end all military organizations asap instead of only accusing individuals and let the organizations roam on. But if we did it's not like they would have plenty to push back with.

That's complete bullshit.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Sweden

Defense Budget: $7,000,000,000 [2008]

Fit for Military Service: 3,336,983 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 34,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 262,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 38,650 [2008]

Total Land-Based Weapons: 540
Total Aircraft: 744 [2003]
Helicopters: 150 [2003]
Total Navy Ships: 77

Good luck with that.

Sure we've lowered military budget and defenses since the end of the Soviet union but it would still be a bitch for them to actually take over anything.

The current government also added 20,000 more police men/women.

I would agree upon that we should use the police and/or military to end all military organizations asap instead of only accusing individuals and let the organizations roam on. But if we did it's not like they would have plenty to push back with.

Well, current estimates of military strength beg to differ.

I once read that their military has one gun for every eight "fighting" troops currently. While I doubt this is true, looking at the numbers the CIA gives for their army it appears unlikely that the US would be outgunned, even if the US would be out-manned.

However, their nukes will certainly annihilate us even as ours annihilate them, so war really isn't a viable proposition.

I fail to see how you can assert that there is an objective, absolute morality unless you can show me some physical thing from whence it derives.

OK here is where our moral authority comes from. It's the same damn place that any other human ultimately gets their authority over another human. The power to beat your ass. That is where your parent's got their authority from, that's where the police get their authority from, that's where the US gets it's authority from. How that authority is used is a matter of the morality of the ones in power, in the case of the US most commonly held moralities are (at least on the surface) an outgrowth of Judeo-Christian principles.