The debate "Would a US/Russia alliance be able to successfully conquer the world" was started by
January 21, 2017, 3:08 pm.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
ProfessorX posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Blue_ray posted 6 arguments, neveralone posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
ProfessorX and 10 visitors agree.
Blue_ray, neveralone, historybuff, MlgLeprechaun69, nellie11iah and 11 visitors disagree.
I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic.
yes, cults took over the world. and one day we won't need to believe in mythological brings.
only a good king can attempt to conquer the world but he won't be the king of kings. The world has already been conquered by the almighty God.
So poor people who are brilliant and good with money have no shot in the US? What did Dr. Ben Carson do to do better?
your handicapping all poor people, which includes most of black america, and a lot of white america.
I wasn't talking about literal handicaps. I'm talking about a handicap in the race of life. their f***ed from the start.
Handicapped kids are not mocked. They can truly not keep up.
cause you know right after Jim crow they all invested heavily heavily in black neighborhoods cause they loved their colored neighbors soooo much. lol
if anything these modern piece of shit schools are the best blacks had thus far.
your putting the chicken before the egg.
if that was the case you should easily be able to point to a time when blacks had good schools and good teachers which eventually all left and deteriorated because of the black flunk out culture.
instead what you do see is decrepit schools and underfunded education from the very beginning, and generation after generation of handicapped people being mocked for their inability to keep up.
please, show me those early good schools before they gave up on this "culture"
A lot of good teachers also flock to good kids. Nobody wants to teach kids who dont care to be educated. School cultures, especially in public schooling, is a very strong attraction for teachers.
And you expect the government, having spent exorbitant amounts of money for no progress, to spend it well? Like I said its the culture that fixes things. Black students drop out because that is black culture. We need them to change their culture. Its hard, but that is the greatest aid to them.
as far as computers go, I'm sure you know times change. Idk your age, but a simple dos computer with a dot matrix printer may have been state of the art stuff many kids didn't see.
and the proven textbooks and strong teachers is something money buys. of course throwing money is not going to solve anything because the how you spend the money is more important then how much you throw.
and of course nothing ends up in any unnecessary pockets.
used wisely, money can solve any problem.
And yes it was a public school, but its sole purpose was to be stringent
Money doesn't solve the crisis. Its an individual cultural problem. My high school was an older facility compared to others and didnt receive much in program spending. Yes, we had computers; however, there was a strong curriculum in place with proven textbooks. It was a top high school in the state and the country. But other schools receive more funding than ours did. A huge difference is the culture of the students and teachers. I know of a lot of top students coming from public high schools who struggled im college with course loads. Everyone I knew who went to college from my school were well prepared and successful.
so let's keep throwing endless amounts of money even tho we are already superior to the rest of the top 10 several times over? why not just burn the money? or I don't know, educate our population to not have to compete with 3rd world countries...
and no. you twisted history buff's words who said we are spending too much and it is illogical, into we shouldn't fund it at all.
That implication would be myself twisting my own words. Military spending is a constitutional obligation. It should be a primary expenditure.
education system as a whole may be flushed with cash, yet low income area schools consistently are under funded. large class sizes, underpaid skeleton staff, no computers, no art program, out of date books, and laughable science equipment.
if the total money is not the issue, the distribution of it is. or maybe it's not as cash filled as you are claiming.
he didn't say whether it should exist or not. he asked if it's needed to be funded at 3x the runner up.
stop twisting words rogue american.
Because a military is a constitutionally designated power of government.
life would be worse and many more would starve if we were invaded by russia/china/etc.
just playing devil's advocate. with 3x the budget and the highest tech we'll easily win any war. even if we assume all our allies will forget about us.
also, more right wing nonsense.
the reason we have less soldiers and less of a particular aircraft and ships is like Obama said "we also have less horses and bayonettes." nobody counting the number of extra drones? why would you even want to have more people soldiers? to send home more bodybags?
politicians renew military contracts for weapons the pentagon tells them they don't want just to keep a base or manufacturing open in their district. that's politics, not defense. and that's a waste of money.
that didn't answer the question. your defense budget is three times the amount of any other country on the planet. you are running hundreds of billions into debt every year to pay for it. and there are many Americans starving or living in poverty that money could go to helping.
how can you justify spending such a ludicrously large amount on your military?
Of course not. The very fact that spending 3.9 trillion does nothing
so the fact that you are spending triple the money of any other country on earth while Americans starve makes sense to you?
3.9 trillion dollar budget and 600 billion is used for a key position. As far as education, we have seen drastic increases in spending for years without worthwhile improvements in quality. Culture is the driver of education. Abundant financial aid gas arguably dug the whole deeper. Its a guaranteed killing now having needs based sloans that must be paid back no matter what (bankruptcy). There is nothing to lose by increasing costs.
So if you spent a large part of your household income on guns while some members of your family starved, would you consider it financial responsible?
The military spending is obscene, and it doesn't need to be. Trump's rhetoric about the military being in decline is ridiculous when you look at how much is actually being spent. If the military budget was cut slightly, schools across the nation could be improved. Imagine how much better the nation would do if more kids got quality educations. Imagine how much things could improve if the government started offering bursaries and grants to deserving people going to school in areas that we need more people. We could simultaneously help people get higher education and steer people towards sectors in which there is demand.
For a vary basic overview of government spending, this website breaks it down.
The high spending is for dominance, and also because we are the military superpower of the world. Many nations do not advocate military spending as they are able to utilize US bases to satisfy both us amd them in matters of security.
look at it like this. in 2001 you spent about 300 billion on the military. you have doubled your military spending. at your highest point you were at 671 billion per year during the Iraq war in 2013.
if you cut you spending by 50% it would take you back to pre war on terror levels.
and why do you feel like you need to spend that much? half of the top 10 are your allies. and the other half don't like each other so odds are they would never ally each other.
I'm saying when you look at a list of the 10 countries that spend the most money on their militaries, if you put all but America together, it is less than you spend.
that list includes France, Britain, South Korea, Japan and Germany which are American allies. and Saudi Arabia which is sort of an ally, they could easily be an enemy so I hesitate to just say ally.
you spend about triple what China does. a little less than 10 times what Russia does.
But history, you have to admit that the US is the muscle in NATO. Other countries dont need to spend as much.
If we're going to unfunded liabilities....
one estimate puts the cost of the Iraq war at 2 trillion dollars. when you include the benefits that will need to be paid to veterans , that cost could rise to 6 trillion over the next few decades as these payments will need to keep being paid.
so what ur saying is were spending ten times what everyone else is? that's is unwise. even spending double would be hard to justify.
well a significant chunk of that debt is from your invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Occupation armies are very expensive.
and your military has been a run away bloated monstrosity for decades. you spend more than the next 10 top spenders combined. most of whom are NATO members or other allies. your military desperately needs cuts if you are ever going to stop your slide into insolvency.
I would not say the military. maybe in a time where their isn't much chance to use such but I don't believe that time is now. I would cut our losses in coal and look to the future and put our money in smarter things. like solar power and other such power which is the way the world is heading. by the way who the heck kept spending all this money when we obviously are now going to have a ton of problems? it might have helped them temporarily but it bit us back in the end.
but you do have debt. 20 trillion of it. and a large chunk of it is owed to foreign governments and banks. you couldn't afford to pay your military without these loans. ergo, you couldn't fight a war without them either.
and with the military taking up more than half of discretionary spending, is there any question of what needs to be cut if you are ever going to fix your debt problem?
or stop spending in some areas or at least cut the budget. eventually any debt can be paid. it's more of wether or not the other person is willing to wait or take small payments at a time. either way I would prefer to not be in debt at all.
the depression had nothing to do with debt. it was a stock market crash. they are completely different scenarios. if America went to war then the rest of the world would stop floating your loans. the only way America could pay for anything would be to print money or borrow more heavily from your own populace which you would never be able to repay. this would cause your currency to collapse and you would be ruined. and every pension plan, bank and investment group which holds American debt would collapse too taking your whole economy down with it.
War doesn't solve debt problems, it makes them worse since you would have to massively ramp up military spending.
I would agree differently. we actually we're (in a messed up way) saved by war. in the great depression we got out of it because farmers sold their crops to the countries that were war torn. I hope we find a diff. way and would like not to go to war and that Trump is successful? and gets us out of debt. if not we might become a slave army to China. though I don't think America would take that for long then we would be at war with China. then everyone will get hurt big or small.
if the US went to war, they would collapse financially.
13 years is not very long when it comes to military procurement. building ships is a time consuming, expensive process. besides, the US is massively in debt and getting worse every day. and trump is going to make that much, much worse.
trade wars and cutting corporate taxes, building a rediculous wall. how long do you think America can continue to hemorrhage money like this? who do think you owe that money to? China owns a large chunk of your debt. America has big guns, but they owe almost 20 trillion dollars. your deficit for this year is estimated at 503 billion. but I would say that is a low end estimate of trump does the things he says he will.
Yeah. he said the USN has been on decline since 1991. He's promised the people to rise the USN and the USF. Lets hope for the best.
I wonder how Trump will do though. he seems like he will increase our military to say the least.
Historybuff, it says China will outnumber US military by 2030. Its 13 years from now. China's air force's reform would modernise it. Moreover The number of modern submarines are increasing from 60 to 75 by 2020. China is also thinking of building more aircraft carriers and ships. It has over 70 military satellites plus an advantage of cyber warfare. It has the largest number of ground forces. The number of flying hours of pilots are on the rise. Each and every fact is to considered seriously. China would be a threat by 2030.
Beyond 1812 which wasnt a win or loss, would you care to look at what was lost by each nation versus what remained?
Dont tell me this is about your capital being burned down.
just looked it up and it said that was a tie.
don't know about the 1812 one but the rest was poor planning. which by itself has deadly effect.
and your military was defeated by the British in the war of 1812. it was defeated by Vietnamese in Vietnam. you were forced to leave Iraq and only made the country worse, I wouldn't consider that winning either. you were also fought to a draw against the Chinese in the Korean war, and you had the help of several other countries.
you could. but since that would also result in your destruction as well I wouldn't call that winning. mutually assured destruction works both ways. that's why it's mutual.
History let me ask you a question. If America truly wanted to "win a war", could we not annihilate every living person anywhere?
It goes back to what Dave said. Politicians lose wars. Our military has never been defeated. ROEs just guarantee limited success.
for Vietnam we could of easily win that if we didn't have a stupid strategy that we did. we had it where we take no land but kill people by the thousands this could of work in a place with very little people but they have a ton.
wasnt it Trump saying we weren't supposed to start it but we should of finished it?
we have one every war that we properly planned and that we had full support of the public. both key elements in winning any war
here is a link to an article discussing the Chinese military. the short version is that their navy and air force could overtake America's by 2030.
but it isn't about a straight comparison of how many ships America has. look at Vietnam. you had vast amounts of ships, planes helicopters, bombs, etc. you got your asses kicked by a bunch of barely literate peasants.
look at Iraq. you went in blew stuff up and declared victory. you then got trapped in a long slow meat grinder. Iraq is a complete mess and you ran away from the situation you created.
even if America could win the battle. they would never win the war. this is a lesson America never seems to learn.
Let's just accept it - Pakistan could probably conquer the planet in a few days.
historybuff, USN has over 60 destroyers, 11 a.c. 75 submarines. Think twice.
very soon? China? C-H-I-N-A are you sure? Comparable to USF, USN and US army? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL How? How? LMAO.
LOL. I played civilization as Russia and i couldnt defeat China.
Kutuzov not zhukov :(
I agree!! Tsar Alexander (I believe) refused to listen to General Zhukov at the battle of Austerlitz against napoleon and had his army slaughtered. When Zhukov finally won the war and was allowed to retreat tactically, he trapped Napoleon in Moscow and destroyed his supply lines.
China's status as a super power is debatable. they aren't as powerful as the US yet, but it will happen very soon.
Russia is just a regional power at this point. NATO without the US would probably have little difficulty defeating Russia.
China isnt a superpower. NATO alone can defeat it without an american hand.
true but this will create chaos. it will cripple. then we can clean up. or take our time and sow discontent between the nation's let them kill each other off and take out the survivors. do u think this will actually happen or did u just want to put out a intellectual entertaining debate? as a side note to all reading this I would not support such a war.
Taking out the capital doesn't really decapitate the leadership of the military. That is always spread out to make sure it can't happen. The loss of civilian leadership in some cases would help the military since it removes people who don't understand tactics and strategies.
again it depends. let's say for some reason this happens and I'm president I would attack before u know I would. take out the capitals so they will be in disarray
For the record, I meant numbers of troop, aircraft, ship and assorted other military assets.
Could you put some numbers to this theory to show that you aren't way off? It seems that even if other nations aren't superpowers, they would collectively be more than a match for Russia and China.
Together, they could because thats 2 superpowers vs 1 superpower and all other puny ones
you would be outnumbered like 15 to one. how is it even a question?
unless they used nuclear weapons there is virtually no chance of winning. and even with nuclear weapons you would still be obliterated by other countries nuclear weapons.
if for some reason America suddenly wanted to.(doubt it) maybe. the biggest problem would be China so I would guess we would strike them down silently and quickly. then it would be close to just a matter of time.
just the US and Russia vs everyone else? no. that would be highly unlikely.