09 Aug 2016 16:23:14
Yes muscatred its logistics that wins wars. Logistics and intelligence.
Latest replies
09 Aug 2016 16:21:13
She's definitely sociopathic/ psychotic.
Read discussionShe's definitely sociopathic/ psychotic.
Reply · 
hsf · 09 Aug 2016 14:35
hsf · 09 Aug 2016 14:3509 Aug 2016 15:28:02
She has a brain? First I've heard.
Read discussionShe has a brain? First I've heard.
09 Aug 2016 15:18:20
I hadn't seen it. There are various organisations that that rank various nations military capabilities. Janes's for example. They all agree current number one is America. This website may be of use.
goo.gl/trv67
Read discussionI hadn't seen it. There are various organisations that that rank various nations military capabilities. Janes's for example. They all agree current number one is America. This website may be of use.
goo.gl/trv67
09 Aug 2016 14:56:34
I'm not Kim but I know a little about this subject. Ignoring the simple answer (it's America) the question of 'who has the best military' needs refinement. Some countries have a very specialised military that's brilliant at what it wants it to do (Israel for example) but could never conduct a large scale operation against another established power.
To me the mark of a good military is the ability to independently plan, conduct, support and maintain a large scale foreign deployment. Arguably the only nations in the world that can do that are the US, Britain, France and Russia. China may be the 5th but whether they have the expertise and support network isn't clear.
Fighting is actually the easy bit, it's all the boring stuff around that that makes war hard.
Read discussionI'm not Kim but I know a little about this subject. Ignoring the simple answer (it's America) the question of 'who has the best military' needs refinement. Some countries have a very specialised military that's brilliant at what it wants it to do (Israel for example) but could never conduct a large scale operation against another established power.
To me the mark of a good military is the ability to independently plan, conduct, support and maintain a large scale foreign deployment. Arguably the only nations in the world that can do that are the US, Britain, France and Russia. China may be the 5th but whether they have the expertise and support network isn't clear.
Fighting is actually the easy bit, it's all the boring stuff around that that makes war hard.
09 Aug 2016 11:11:42
As I said French arrogance, bad weather and good tactics from the English including the terrain.
Read discussionAs I said French arrogance, bad weather and good tactics from the English including the terrain.
09 Aug 2016 11:09:33
They could fit the H into the name.
Read discussionThey could fit the H into the name.
08 Aug 2016 22:04:20
What did the French in at Agincourt was their arrogance, coupled with the fact that the French knights were on horse back in the main, they thought they were invincible, most of the English knights fought on foot, as they weren't as wealthy as their French counterparts, the French never took into account the heavy ground they were riding into' and once the longbow men got to work it was game over
the French had no where to run to at the front were dealt with quickly and the pressing knights who couldn't see what was happening kept piling in, it was a killing zone which was well chosen by the english, the English foot knights and Sargent at arm's made light work of the heavily armoured French who were unable to truly fight while dismounted in such heavy ground.
Read discussionWhat did the French in at Agincourt was their arrogance, coupled with the fact that the French knights were on horse back in the main, they thought they were invincible, most of the English knights fought on foot, as they weren't as wealthy as their French counterparts, the French never took into account the heavy ground they were riding into' and once the longbow men got to work it was game over
the French had no where to run to at the front were dealt with quickly and the pressing knights who couldn't see what was happening kept piling in, it was a killing zone which was well chosen by the english, the English foot knights and Sargent at arm's made light work of the heavily armoured French who were unable to truly fight while dismounted in such heavy ground.
Reply · hsf · 08 Aug 2016 22:09
hsf · 08 Aug 2016 22:0908 Aug 2016 21:53:56
Reading the comments are quite interesting.
One said: NASA = Never A Straight Answer
Another said: NASA = No Aliens Seen Anywhere
Very creative.
This one took my eye though, NASA apparently means Deceive in Hebrew. Although a quick google search says it's "להטעות" which means reverted to English is apparently "nasha".
Quite interesting to be fair. I had no idea about that.
Read discussionReading the comments are quite interesting.
One said: NASA = Never A Straight Answer
Another said: NASA = No Aliens Seen Anywhere
Very creative.
This one took my eye though, NASA apparently means Deceive in Hebrew. Although a quick google search says it's "להטעות" which means reverted to English is apparently "nasha".
Quite interesting to be fair. I had no idea about that.
08 Aug 2016 10:28:36
So who has the best military in your opinion Kim? And why if you don't mind me asking.
Read discussionSo who has the best military in your opinion Kim? And why if you don't mind me asking.
06 Aug 2016 16:42:36
Yes but a combination of French arrogance, bad weather conditions and good use of tactical topography by the English results in the victory at Agincourt.
I'm not saying you couldn't win a war against China. But it would be very difficult.
In the mid 1960s Khrushchev thought about attacking China and decided against it after weighing up the advice of the Marshals. Many of whom had won the war against the Germans.
Forces with numerical inferiority often win because of technical superiority. Like Agincourt or your colonial wars in Africa and India. Today the technological gap is greatly reduced.
Read discussionYes but a combination of French arrogance, bad weather conditions and good use of tactical topography by the English results in the victory at Agincourt.
I'm not saying you couldn't win a war against China. But it would be very difficult.
In the mid 1960s Khrushchev thought about attacking China and decided against it after weighing up the advice of the Marshals. Many of whom had won the war against the Germans.
Forces with numerical inferiority often win because of technical superiority. Like Agincourt or your colonial wars in Africa and India. Today the technological gap is greatly reduced.
Reply · hsf · 06 Aug 2016 14:32
hsf · 06 Aug 2016 14:3206 Aug 2016 15:18:04
"With a population of 1.2 billion China has the worlds largest army and air force. You'd be fighting against overwhelming odds"
Kim, I know history is written by the winners, but didn't Henry V go over to France with 7,000 men and defeat an army of 35,000+ Frenchman?
Read discussion"With a population of 1.2 billion China has the worlds largest army and air force. You'd be fighting against overwhelming odds"
Kim, I know history is written by the winners, but didn't Henry V go over to France with 7,000 men and defeat an army of 35,000+ Frenchman?
Reply · hsf · 06 Aug 2016 14:32
hsf · 06 Aug 2016 14:3206 Aug 2016 15:19:01
I'm no too far from Poole, about 60 mile or so. I'm from Hampshire, so I'm a proper southerner :D.
Read discussionI'm no too far from Poole, about 60 mile or so. I'm from Hampshire, so I'm a proper southerner :D.
06 Aug 2016 09:42:56
No. I'd say the Russian forces are currently the second strongest in the world. Putin has invested heavily after the neglect of the buffoons years.
But you'd be crazy to take on China for several reasons.
Lets assume a conventional war as nuclear weapons are understood by all as the last resort not the opener.
1. Geography. Russia shares a lengthy border with China. Easier to invade on a broad front with air support. America lacks nearby bases. Air support could operate from Taiwan, Japan and South Korea but where's the nearby land base? For Iraq they used Saudi Arabia.
2.Numbers. With a population of 1.2 billion China has the worlds largest army and air force. You'd be fighting against overwhelming odds. I read a book a few years ago on your involvement in the Korean war. The battle of the Imjin River aka Gloucester Hill. The quote goes something like this "we worked out that if you made the entire population of China walk past a post the line would never end due to new people being born".
3. The Chinese, like Russia, have spent heavily on the military over the last decade. They've been developing their own kit rather than just copying old Russian equipment. The Americans would be in for a far harder fight than Iraq 13 years ago.
4. Appetite. The ordinary American is sick of war. Its a hard sell these even for one with a cause like post 911. Manufacturing a reason to attack China? can't see many buying it. Also there would be a lack of allies. Britain for example post brexit isn't going to throw trade away. South Korea would be occupied with the North which surely would take the opportunity to attack with the Americans busy. Japan has no real military. The rest of Europe would stay out. Isis is a threat. China isn't.
Lastly given the large Chinese communities around the world in places like London, New York and Los Angeles just how many do you think would be sympathisers at least or sleepers at most. Even 5% would be enough to cause huge disruption.
What was Napoleons quote on China? Let her sleep for when she awakes the world will tremble?
Read discussionNo. I'd say the Russian forces are currently the second strongest in the world. Putin has invested heavily after the neglect of the buffoons years.
But you'd be crazy to take on China for several reasons.
Lets assume a conventional war as nuclear weapons are understood by all as the last resort not the opener.
1. Geography. Russia shares a lengthy border with China. Easier to invade on a broad front with air support. America lacks nearby bases. Air support could operate from Taiwan, Japan and South Korea but where's the nearby land base? For Iraq they used Saudi Arabia.
2.Numbers. With a population of 1.2 billion China has the worlds largest army and air force. You'd be fighting against overwhelming odds. I read a book a few years ago on your involvement in the Korean war. The battle of the Imjin River aka Gloucester Hill. The quote goes something like this "we worked out that if you made the entire population of China walk past a post the line would never end due to new people being born".
3. The Chinese, like Russia, have spent heavily on the military over the last decade. They've been developing their own kit rather than just copying old Russian equipment. The Americans would be in for a far harder fight than Iraq 13 years ago.
4. Appetite. The ordinary American is sick of war. Its a hard sell these even for one with a cause like post 911. Manufacturing a reason to attack China? can't see many buying it. Also there would be a lack of allies. Britain for example post brexit isn't going to throw trade away. South Korea would be occupied with the North which surely would take the opportunity to attack with the Americans busy. Japan has no real military. The rest of Europe would stay out. Isis is a threat. China isn't.
Lastly given the large Chinese communities around the world in places like London, New York and Los Angeles just how many do you think would be sympathisers at least or sleepers at most. Even 5% would be enough to cause huge disruption.
What was Napoleons quote on China? Let her sleep for when she awakes the world will tremble?
05 Aug 2016 23:48:35
Well said hp, I was going to say the same thing'concerning the 1st paragraph.
Read discussionWell said hp, I was going to say the same thing'concerning the 1st paragraph.
05 Aug 2016 23:53:37
Kim that comment, "no one is stupid enough to go to war with china", are you implying that you think they are more powerful than Russia militarily?
Read discussionKim that comment, "no one is stupid enough to go to war with china", are you implying that you think they are more powerful than Russia militarily?
05 Aug 2016 20:29:15
That remains to be seen! however, I wonder whether he did actually say that, or perhaps it's been taken out of context to show him up as being 'erratic'.
Additionally, was watching Fox 'unbiased' news show that HC is up in the poles for being the favorite for the Whitehouse, following her DNC. Bounce.
Read discussionThat remains to be seen! however, I wonder whether he did actually say that, or perhaps it's been taken out of context to show him up as being 'erratic'.
Additionally, was watching Fox 'unbiased' news show that HC is up in the poles for being the favorite for the Whitehouse, following her DNC. Bounce.
05 Aug 2016 18:29:23
Sorry didn't mean to be picky. The whole Yugoslavian situation was a mess and I'd imagine a lot of things were never reported or misreported.
Read discussionSorry didn't mean to be picky. The whole Yugoslavian situation was a mess and I'd imagine a lot of things were never reported or misreported.
Reply · 
TTTS · 05 Aug 2016 10:01
TTTS · 05 Aug 2016 10:0105 Aug 2016 10:43:02
Balkan indeed my mistake Kim.
Read discussionBalkan indeed my mistake Kim.
05 Aug 2016 10:37:16
More to the point who would he want to use them against?
Britain and France are allies. As is Israel. India and Pakistan are an irrelevance in US foreign policy as far as military matters are concerned. Trump isn't as anti Russian as Hilary. North Korea can't get it to work. Iran doesn't have them yet. And no one is stupid enough to go to war with China.
So who does he intend to use them on?
Read discussionMore to the point who would he want to use them against?
Britain and France are allies. As is Israel. India and Pakistan are an irrelevance in US foreign policy as far as military matters are concerned. Trump isn't as anti Russian as Hilary. North Korea can't get it to work. Iran doesn't have them yet. And no one is stupid enough to go to war with China.
So who does he intend to use them on?