NationStates Jolt Archive

any idea how much is cost to supply and train a solder in most armys today?

supply means

Basic weapons and ammo
basic uniform/equptment
food/water

and sorry for the spelling

Much less than Bush spends on toilet paper for his pussy dog.

any idea how much is cost to supply and train a solder in most armys today?

supply means

Basic weapons and ammo
basic uniform/equptment
food/water

and sorry for the spelling

Depends. Initially its in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. After that, the price tag increases as they increase in training as well as pay grade.

As for the rest, your guess is as good as mine.

It really does depend on the Army, but a standard to measure by is the US Army at $50,000US/year for an infantryman including housing/training/pay and so on. Not necessarily accurate, but a metric used as a rough and ready rule for the cost of an infantryman.

Much less than Bush spends on toilet paper for his pussy dog.

It is a question that has no politics in it, and yet people still manage to bash Bush. Wow........these forums can be really fucked up at times.

It is a question that has no politics in it, and yet people still manage to bash Bush. Wow........these forums can be really fucked up at times.

Caribel is a troll that gets pretty much ignored! Just ignore the troll and he'll go away.

Caribel is a troll that gets pretty much ignored! Just ignore the troll and he'll go away.


Wow, my first day, and I've already made a name for myself. Imagine that!

Caribel is a troll that gets pretty much ignored! Just ignore the troll and he'll go away.
Yeah, but he's getting to the point where it's time to see the mods about getting a ban. Insulting a man's dog because you dislike the man is going too far. I have seen no behavior from Barney which deserves his being called names.

any idea how much is cost to supply and train a solder in most armys today?

supply means

Basic weapons and ammo
basic uniform/equptment
food/water

and sorry for the spelling

It all depends on the country and also what the soldier is being trained to do. In Western Nations it would cost a fair bit. But for a Nation like China, give the soldier a pointed stick and just tell him to run with his millions comrades towards the enemy. That is why, children, we have cluster bombs and the MOAB.

On a final note, if you are a nation like Canada, with a bunch cheap corrupt assholes who don't give a flying fuka about the military, then it can also be very cheap to equip your forces.

In a perfect state, it costs absolutely zilch. Private citizens purchase their own weapons, take advantage of privately offered training, and join local militias which work to defend themselves from criminals, and if necessary, whatever idiot of a nation's military which decides to invade a country in which a gun rests behind each blade of grass (the reason why Japan never so much as considered invading the Continental US, and why Switzerland is historically bulletproof).

This has the side effect of making it extremely difficult for the country to invade another country, because they have no formal army. Then again, that's seeming better and better as the War on Terror progresses. :cool:

ok here is a new question

what kind of Infintry weapons can normaly go threw 8mm of armor on a vehical

It is a question that has no politics in it.
On a final note, if you are a nation like Canada, with a bunch cheap corrupt assholes who don't give a flying fuka about the military, then it can also be very cheap to equip your forces.
And you're complaining about people bashing Bush?

Somewhere else on the forums I heard the US spends about 110,000 USD per soldier, but I'm not sure if this is accurate.

I dunno but, im an officer in training (part time), i get 30£ ever day i train, this will increase to either 35 for a 2nd lietenant, or 40 if im good in traning and become a lietenant.

It is a question that has no politics in it, and yet people still manage to bash Bush. Wow........these forums can be really fucked up at times.

hes the guy you love to hate! :D

ok here is a new question

what kind of Infintry weapons can normaly go threw 8mm of armor on a vehical

anti tank rocket, RPG

ok here is a new question

what kind of Infintry weapons can normaly go threw 8mm of armor on a vehical

Depends on the kind of armor. Titanium, kevlar, or hardened steel will require something between a .308 round or 7.62x54 to a .50 caliber weapon. .308 is generally either used in rifles carried by marksmen and heavy gunners, and the .50 calibers are used in sniper/anti vehicle rifles or vehicle mounted weapons. An RPG will also do the trick nicely.

If it's just plain steel, a .223 (as commonly used by our troops in the SAW and M4) or 7.62x39 round (common in the AK-47 and most soviet design weapons) will go clean through it. It will bleed more than enough energy out of the round to keep it from going through body armor though.

Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

Because thats the Armor thickness of a Cadillac Gage Scouts armor

One of these?

http://www.twilightarmouries.ca/AFV/LAV/commando_scout.htm

The heavier rounds will pierce it like a sardine can. It's angled to deflect RPG and light fire though.

yeah thats it, and thanks

And you're complaining about people bashing Bush?
At least his was military-related, Caribel's spam was just plain trolling and wasn't even related to the subject.

At least his was military-related, Caribel's spam was just plain trolling and wasn't even related to the subject.
True, but it was still unnecessary

Regardless of the dollar ammount, the important thing to note is that whatever money is spent training and equipping a soldier in the developed world today is money not only wasted, but invested in waste.

Paying 100 dollars to fund a useless and wasteful liability like the US Military is not merely burning 100 dollars, it is using 100 dollars as a torch to burn piles of money in the future.

Regardless of the dollar ammount, the important thing to note is that whatever money is spent training and equipping a soldier in the developed world today is money not only wasted, but invested in waste.

Paying 100 dollars to fund a useless and wasteful liability like the US Military is not merely burning 100 dollars, it is using 100 dollars as a torch to burn piles of money in the future.

So why shouldn't we spend money on defense?

So why shouldn't we spend money on defense?


There is a difference between spending money on defense (against real enemies) and wasting fortunes on things like a humongous conventional army.

The cold war proved that superpowers dont fight eachother anymore, nuclear deterrance has brought this irrevocably about.

The money wasted on the military could be spent a hundred different ways with incalulable increases in efficiency to save american lives and strengthen the country economically.

So why shouldn't we spend money on defense?
Try this (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-mis.html)
5th one down.

There is a difference between spending money on defense (against real enemies) and wasting fortunes on things like a humongous conventional army.

The cold war proved that superpowers dont fight eachother anymore, nuclear deterrance has brought this irrevocably about.

The money wasted on the military could be spent a hundred different ways with incalulable increases in efficiency to save american lives and strengthen the country economically.

Amen, Granda. Aside from a few divisions of elite covert strike teams for stuff like keeping Mister Jong from launching nukes, we don't even need a standing army. The citizenry is more than enough, if not ideal for this purpose.

Much less than Bush spends on toilet paper for his pussy dog.
I'm no Bush supporter, but I wish you would stop your childish flamebaiting.

Wow. it never ceasces to amaze me how many people know nothing about military tactics but will go on like they do.

Yeah, the civilians are good enough to stop ANY invasion. Who needs to worry about those pesky battalions of tanks. And so what if the invaders have trained military strategists commanding organized forces. Any thing to raise welfare , right? :headbang:

BTW You know how everyone says "What do we need the military for, we've never even been invaded?" WHY DO YOU THINK WE'VE NEVER BEEN INVADED?

True, but it was still unnecessary

So is the Liberal Party of Canada, but that is just me.

Yeah, the civilians are good enough to stop ANY invasion. Who needs to worry about those pesky battalions of tanks. And so what if the invaders have trained military strategists commanding organized forces. Any thing to raise welfare , right? :headbang:

BTW You know how everyone says "What do we need the military for, we've never even been invaded?" WHY DO YOU THINK WE'VE NEVER BEEN INVADED?

The last time this nation was invaded was During the Civil War.

Amen, Granda. Aside from a few divisions of elite covert strike teams for stuff like keeping Mister Jong from launching nukes, we don't even need a standing army. The citizenry is more than enough, if not ideal for this purpose.

[Teacher Mode]And this, students, is why we let people actually trained in martial arts to run our military[/Teacher Mode]
:D

The last time this nation was invaded was During the Civil War.
Yeah, I guess I shouldn't say "never", but you get the drift.

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't say "never", but you get the drift.

I did but I do have to set the record straight. Also, if you truly want to get technical. We were invaded during WWII with Guam and the invasion in Alaska.

I did but I do have to set the record straight. Also, if you truly want to get technical. We were invaded during WWII with Guam and the invasion in Alaska.
Damn it! I really have to more research when I post! lol Thanks for the correction!

Damn it! I really have to more research when I post! lol Thanks for the correction!

Not a problem :) World War Two: Pacific Theater is my specialty in trade :D

BTW You know how everyone says "What do we need the military for, we've never even been invaded?" WHY DO YOU THINK WE'VE NEVER BEEN INVADED?It's the old connundrum, how do you judge the necessity of sucessful preventive measures? IF police stopped all crime, would police become unnecessary? The US hasn't had a major stockmarket crash since the great depression, so does the US really need the SEC? And so on, you cannot measure the effectivenss of sucessful preventive measures until you stop taking them, and in this case it would be a little late to decide that not having an army was a bad idea.

Yeah, the civilians are good enough to stop ANY invasion. Who needs to worry about those pesky battalions of tanks. And so what if the invaders have trained military strategists commanding organized forces. Any thing to raise welfare , right? :headbang:

BTW You know how everyone says "What do we need the military for, we've never even been invaded?" WHY DO YOU THINK WE'VE NEVER BEEN INVADED?

I'm not delusional enough to think I'm about to turn your thinking 180°, but nonetheless, here's why.

Who ever said an invading army wouldn't have to deal with pesky battalions of tanks of our own? The concept that "military" hardware and tactics can only be wielded by a standing, full time military is as much an error of thinking as the belief which permeated and sustained the dark ages: that authority can only be wielded by the few.

I say that we've proven that common people can rule themselves and control their own destinies. Why should we not be trusted to protect them as well? Why do we have to rely on the authority and power wielded by a single man or a single ruling body who could turn on us as easily as our enemies to protect our freedom and our safety when we can do this on our own?

If we had no standing military, where would the tanks go? Would the planes, the ships, and yes, the guns be stockpiled and left to rust? Unlikely. What about the soldiers and the generals and the drill sergeants? All these would return to the people, to be faced by any enemy we face, foreign or otherwise.

The human need for freedom and survival is something that can always be relied on. Take away a standing army, and the people will stand in their stead. A standing people will never die on their knees.

It all depends on the country and also what the soldier is being trained to do. In Western Nations it would cost a fair bit. But for a Nation like China, give the soldier a pointed stick and just tell him to run with his millions comrades towards the enemy. That is why, children, we have cluster bombs and the MOAB.

On a final note, if you are a nation like Canada, with a bunch cheap corrupt assholes who don't give a flying fuka about the military, then it can also be very cheap to equip your forces.

Accully, China has pretty modern military, thanks to the US and Israel, the only nations who will still sell them weapons technology after the Tienemin Square Massacure.

And when's Canada got invaded? Or attacked? Not since the 1800s. You know why? Because they don't make enemies, they don't need an empire of blood to provide for their citizens. Peaceful doesn't mean "cheap corrupt assholes." Sod off.

There is a difference between spending money on defense (against real enemies) and wasting fortunes on things like a humongous conventional army.

The cold war proved that superpowers dont fight eachother anymore, nuclear deterrance has brought this irrevocably about.

The money wasted on the military could be spent a hundred different ways with incalulable increases in efficiency to save american lives and strengthen the country economically.

Your point in completely unfounded. The military, in and of itself, has generated more useful tools for the civilian public than the civilian public has for itself. Not only that, the military, sponsored by the government, creates a massive amounts of jobs that help the economy.

Ever wonder why you see all of those 'hicks' and 'rednecks' in 'red' states fighting to keep military bases from closing?

They bring jobs into the area, and the community.

Ever seen a military research facility? Yep, jobs.

What about Northrop Grumman, or Lockeed: Jobs

Cadillac, Chrevolet: More Jobs

So yeah... who ever heard of the Military just sucking away money?

ok here is a new question

what kind of Infintry weapons can normaly go threw 8mm of armor on a vehical

A panzerfaust anti-tank launcher can.

And when's Canada got invaded? Or attacked? Not since the 1800s. You know why? Because they don't make enemies, they don't need an empire of blood to provide for their citizens. Peaceful doesn't mean "cheap corrupt assholes." Sod off.

No... it's because there is nothing worthwhile in Canada that we can't get from someplace else. What am I going to get there? Smart people? Please, even the trees are more intelligent...

Knock on wood anyone?

Yeah, the civilians are good enough to stop ANY invasion. Who needs to worry about those pesky battalions of tanks. And so what if the invaders have trained military strategists commanding organized forces.

The Viet Cong peasent force handed the US army's asses to them pretty well. And the French before that. And the Japanese before that. And the French before that....

No... it's because there is nothing worthwhile in Canada that we can't get from someplace else. What am I going to get there? Smart people? Please, even the trees are more intelligent...

Knock on wood anyone?


What's with the anti-Canada hate? Don't be an asshole.

What's with the anti-Canada hate? Don't be an asshole.

Then stop being an arrogant bastard with all of your 'We're so great because we're so liberal we have no idea what we're doing anymore except telling Americans how bad they are because their society prides itself in things other than our healthcare system.'

Sorry, I know my comment was rude, it was designed to be. I'm just irritated at all of this 'I'm from loving Canada, so I'm going to go bash Americans.'

Then stop being an arrogant bastard with all of your 'We're so great because we're so liberal we have no idea what we're doing anymore except telling Americans how bad they are because their society prides itself in things other than our healthcare system.'

Sorry, I know my comment was rude, it was designed to be. I'm just irritated at all of this 'I'm from loving Canada, so I'm going to go bash Americans.'

Lead By Example.

Then stop being an arrogant bastard with all of your 'We're so great because we're so liberal we have no idea what we're doing anymore except telling Americans how bad they are because their society prides itself in things other than our healthcare system.'

Sorry, I know my comment was rude, it was designed to be. I'm just irritated at all of this 'I'm from loving Canada, so I'm going to go bash Americans.'

I'm not from Canada, I just can't stand people who make insulting generalizations against whole cultures.

Accully, China has pretty modern military, thanks to the US and Israel, the only nations who will still sell them weapons technology after the Tienemin Square Massacure.

And when's Canada got invaded? Or attacked? Not since the 1800s. You know why? Because they don't make enemies, they don't need an empire of blood to provide for their citizens. Peaceful doesn't mean "cheap corrupt assholes." Sod off.
I hate to sound like a typical American, but its true. The ONLY reason Canada stays safe, is because they have their big buddy Mr. America watching over them. Not to say that I mind. I love Canada. Beautiful country, good people.

The Viet Cong peasent force handed the US army's asses to them pretty well. And the French before that. And the Japanese before that. And the French before that....
America won EVERY major battle in Vietnam. You know who lost that war for us? The Cindy Sheehans of the 70's (oh, and people like John Kerry)

America won EVERY major battle in Vietnam. You know who lost that war for us? The Cindy Sheehans of the 70's (oh, and people like John Kerry)

Woot woot! For Sick Dreams: he's dead on the money... On that part. The other part is that it was a politician run war, not a military run war.

IE, like Hitler running the war instead of Rommel...

America won EVERY major battle in Vietnam. You know who lost that war for us? The Cindy Sheehans of the 70's (oh, and people like John Kerry)
The politics and gutless whiners were a MAJOR factor. No doubt there. We shouldn't have been in there in the first place, but it was an abomination to waste the lives of thousands of people without accomplishing the goal.

Yet it's not a fair comparison. Vietnam is a third world country with virtually no real way to produce their own weapons, limited resources, and had been torn by the attrition of holding off multiple superpowers for years on end. Virtually any weaponry they had were Russian or Chinese loaners. Whether they were right or wrong, the "peasant force" did an awful good job of it considering.

When was the last time a county with innumerable nuclear silos and submarines was invaded?


The cold war proved that world war is over. Just like laying siege is over. Just like jousting is over.

A standing army is a liability, it serves no purpose othat than as a money sink.

I hate to sound like a typical American, but its true. The ONLY reason Canada stays safe, is because they have their big buddy Mr. America watching over them. Not to say that I mind. I love Canada. Beautiful country, good people.


No, it's because they make no enemies.

America won EVERY major battle in Vietnam. You know who lost that war for us? The Cindy Sheehans of the 70's (oh, and people like John Kerry)

What lost Viet Nam for the US was the same thing that defeated the other invaders: when a gurilla movement has the support of the people, and thus an unlimited supply of troops and hiding places, no amount of firepower can kill it. The US defeated it's self, by canceling the elctions, putting a NYer in power in South Viet Nam, and it's brutal tactic from the start of the war. True, the US won every major battle, but the Viet Cong wasn't a standing army, and didn't fight on those terms.

And how the hell is it "people like Kerry's" fault? You mean soldiers who went back for 2 more tours of duty after their origonal enlistment was up?

The politics and gutless whiners...

You can't call all those who fought for peace "gutless whiners"

When was the last time a county with innumerable nuclear silos and submarines was invaded?

The cold war proved that world war is over. Just like laying siege is over. Just like jousting is over.

A standing army is a liability, it serves no purpose othat than as a money sink.

Good point, but the nuclear silos themselves are a liability as well. A nuclear war (whether or not that's possible is another debate) would bring us back to the point where we would not only would jousting be back in style, but a standing army would quickly turn into from a liability to a well trained, deadly menace.

You can't call all those who fought for peace "gutless whiners"
That was NOT my meaning. I'm sincerely sorry if I conveyed that. :(

That was NOT my meaning. I'm sincerely sorry if I conveyed that. :(

My bad. I suppose I made some assumptions about you, I apologize.

You can't call all those who fought for peace "gutless whiners"


Yes, I can. You know why? Because you guys ruined the chance for the Vietnam to become a peaceful democratic Nation, all because you have no balls and aren't willing for some blood to be shed. It is because you stole the will of the government to use greater force to stop the communists, all because of a few civilians getting killed because they lived near military bases. The only thing the anti-war movement can do right is roll a joint. And now you guys are doing it again in Iraq, WHY DON'T YOU WANT THEM TO BECOME A DEMOCRACY? WHY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Everyone who is against the war to fight for Iraq's freedom are nothing more then traitors to the cause of Freedom and Democracy for all humankind. This forum is filled with people like that, I don't think even Auschitw could take care of all of them in day! So if you are against this war go fight with the insurgents!!!Hell you tell everyone who support this war to go join in the fight so why don't you do the same, I'm sure the insurgents can use you guys.

Now all you anti-war fukas can go fuka off!

Good Day Everyone!!!


"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!!"

The Viet Cong peasent force handed the US army's asses to them pretty well. And the French before that. And the Japanese before that. And the French before that....

Actually, this is entirely incorrect. The Viet Cong didn't hand us our asses. We handed them their asses. The Viet Cong never won a single military engagement against the United States.

What's with the anti-Canada hate? Don't be an asshole.

You know, its posts like this that nearly lead to a double standard. Ok to hate America but not ok to hate other countries. Grow up!

When was the last time a county with innumerable nuclear silos and submarines was invaded?


The cold war proved that world war is over. Just like laying siege is over. Just like jousting is over.

A standing army is a liability, it serves no purpose othat than as a money sink.

Except as a first line of Defense against nations that want to do us harm. Sorry but its time for you to come back to the real world now and not a fantasy land.

No, it's because they make no enemies.



What lost Viet Nam for the US was the same thing that defeated the other invaders: when a gurilla movement has the support of the people, and thus an unlimited supply of troops and hiding places, no amount of firepower can kill it. The US defeated it's self, by canceling the elctions, putting a NYer in power in South Viet Nam, and it's brutal tactic from the start of the war. True, the US won every major battle, but the Viet Cong wasn't a standing army, and didn't fight on those terms.

And how the hell is it "people like Kerry's" fault? You mean soldiers who went back for 2 more tours of duty after their origonal enlistment was up?

I disagree that the VC had the support of the community. They said "Help us or we will kill you." The Americans and allies did not force that upon them, so they helped the VC to save themselves and family/neighbours

The army and other forces are a deterrant to other attackers. You think that the North Koreans would not invade the South again if there was not a South Korean/American army there?
All armies and defence forces must advanced as possible or people will still invade. You think someone would not invade a country with present technology if there opponents only had muskets?
Canada is an exception as the Americans are across the border, and there are other exceptions, but it ultimately boils down to force.
The pen is mightier than the sword, but you still need the sword for the illiterates and people who burn books

Except as a first line of Defense against nations that want to do us harm. Sorry but its time for you to come back to the real world now and not a fantasy land.


When was the last time we used the military to prevent another country from doing us harm?

World War Two.

Then, you see, we invented something called the "atomic bomb."

Ever since, it has been what is called a "deterrant."

What the atomic bomb does, corneliu, is deters other countries from doing us harm by assuring their complete destruction if they do.

Yes, I can. You know why? Because you guys ruined the chance for the Vietnam to become a peaceful democratic Nation, all because you have no balls and aren't willing for some blood to be shed. It is because you stole the will of the government to use greater force to stop the communists, all because of a few civilians getting killed because they lived near military bases. The only thing the anti-war movement can do right is roll a joint. And now you guys are doing it again in Iraq, WHY DON'T YOU WANT THEM TO BECOME A DEMOCRACY? WHY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Everyone who is against the war to fight for Iraq's freedom are nothing more then traitors to the cause of Freedom and Democracy for all humankind. This forum is filled with people like that, I don't think even Auschitw could take care of all of them in day! So if you are against this war go fight with the insurgents!!!Hell you tell everyone who support this war to go join in the fight so why don't you do the same, I'm sure the insurgents can use you guys.

Now all you anti-war fukas can go fuka off!

Good Day Everyone!!!


"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!!"


Wow, take your head out of your ass and open your mind a bit.

One, you make alot of generalizations and assumptions about me. You don't even know me, or how I think, or what I think

you can't call everyone who disagrees with you gutless. Many people legitimatly believed that Viet Nam was a pointless lose of life, and we had no right to be there in the first place.

No matter what public support, the Viet Cong could never have been defeated by an outside agressor, because they had the peasentry behind them, and thus unlimited soldiers.

And if you think we were fighting to keep Viet Nam free, you've got another thing comming. We canceled the free elections layed out in the post WWII treaty, split the country in two, and we installed some guy living in NY as the president of South Viet Nam. He was a horrible, despotic ruler. That's why Buddhist Monks were burning themselves in protest, because of his harsh rule.

How can you steal the public will? If the public got behind the peace movement, doesn't that mean that that was the public will?

I know it's your style and all, but could you not respond with insults and generalizations without any support to back up your statements.

"You know, its posts like this that nearly lead to a double standard. Ok to hate America but not ok to hate other countries. Grow up!"

When did I say it's ok to say all americans are idiots/jackasses? I never did. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Actually, this is entirely incorrect. The Viet Cong didn't hand us our asses. We handed them their asses. The Viet Cong never won a single military engagement against the United States.

It wasn't their objective to. At the end of the day, the US went home, and Viet Nam was ruled bu the Vietnamese, which was their goal.

We wanted a base of operations in Southeast Aisa, we wanted to stop the spread of the infulence of China, and we wanted the rubber supplies. We didn't get those things.

They wanted the US out, and to be in control of their country. They got those things.

America won EVERY major battle in Vietnam. You know who lost that war for us? The Cindy Sheehans of the 70's (oh, and people like John Kerry)

Don't let congress off the hook there either.

Sick Dreams, you never answered my question from last page. I'll repeat it:

And how the hell is it "people like Kerry's" fault? You mean soldiers who went back for 2 more tours of duty after their origonal enlistment was up?

It all depends on the country and also what the soldier is being trained to do. In Western Nations it would cost a fair bit. But for a Nation like China, give the soldier a pointed stick and just tell him to run with his millions comrades towards the enemy. That is why, children, we have cluster bombs and the MOAB.


If that's your peception on how China fights, then that is why, children, I say may your respective God help you if you find yourself in a war with China.


On a final note, if you are a nation like Canada, with a bunch cheap corrupt assholes who don't give a flying fuka about the military, then it can also be very cheap to equip your forces.

On a final note, if you are a nation like America, with a bunch of cheap corrupt arseholes who don't give a flying fuka about it's poorest, you can project an army halfway across the world but can't help it's people in time when a natural disaster occurs.

When was the last time we used the military to prevent another country from doing us harm?

World War Two.

Then, you see, we invented something called the "atomic bomb."

Ever since, it has been what is called a "deterrant."

What the atomic bomb does, corneliu, is deters other countries from doing us harm by assuring their complete destruction if they do.

Actually....no. It prevents other nations from attacking us with nukes. Its called nuclear Deterrent. You can destroy us, we can destroy you. Its called Mutually assured Destruction.

What if you have a non-nuclear nation attacking and threatening. You really can't threaten to use nukes unless they use WMD. Instead, you have to rely on a conventional force to take care of this threat.

This is something that you don't seem to understand. Yes we have nuclear weapons but we still have a conventional force.

It wasn't their objective to. At the end of the day, the US went home, and Viet Nam was ruled bu the Vietnamese, which was their goal.

We wanted a base of operations in Southeast Aisa, we wanted to stop the spread of the infulence of China, and we wanted the rubber supplies. We didn't get those things.

They wanted the US out, and to be in control of their country. They got those things.

One thing your forgetting is the fact that China and Vietnam don't like eachother.

Also, the peace treaty was signed in 1973. It wasn't until 1975 that the North took over South Vietnam. Also, it was Congress and not the President that prevented supplies from going to South Vietnam to defeat the North.

No... it's because there is nothing worthwhile in Canada that we can't get from someplace else. What am I going to get there? Smart people? Please, even the trees are more intelligent...

Knock on wood anyone?

Umm, this is like the second time in the last 4 years that Canada is coming to the rescue of the United States, third if you count Afghanistan.. so save it!

The United States has never defended Canada for any reason what-so-ever! Because we haven't needed their help. And if you don't need us, GREAT! As your #1 source of oil imports, many Canadians will be thrilled to hear this!

Umm, this is like the second time in the last 4 years that Canada is coming to the rescue of the United States, third if you count Afghanistan.. so save it!

The United States has never defended Canada for any reason what-so-ever! Because we haven't needed their help. And if you don't need us, GREAT! As your #1 source of oil imports, many Canadians will be thrilled to hear this!

I'm so glad you mentioned that last line. Goes to show that we are NOT getting most of our oil from the Middle East!

Now as for Rescueing us, no! You haven't rescued us from anything. You've helped the United States but you haven't rescued us in anyway shape or form.

I'm so glad you mentioned that last line. Goes to show that we are NOT getting most of our oil from the Middle East!

Now as for Rescueing us, no! You haven't rescued us from anything. You've helped the United States but you haven't rescued us in anyway shape or form.

We sure as hell rescued you on 9/11 though didn't we! All those planes that you were too afraid to let land in the USA, Canada was not. How soon they forget! :rolleyes:

We sure as hell rescued you on 9/11 though didn't we! All those planes that you were too afraid to let land in the USA, Canada was not. How soon they forget! :rolleyes:

You are right. You soon you forget. Incase you haven't noticed, our AIRSPACE WAS CLOSED FOR THREE DAYS!!!!!!! The planes were diverted there but that is hardly rescueing us.

You are right. You soon you forget. Incase you haven't noticed, our AIRSPACE WAS CLOSED FOR THREE DAYS!!!!!!! The planes were diverted there but that is hardly rescueing us.

Canada could of refused the request. We didn't. And we also treated your people better than you treat them as been shown in the last week of the debacle known as "Katrina" Canada could of closed it's airspace too. Then all those planes that were already in your airspace would of had to land in your country as Canada could of refused to let them land in Canada. Don't try and spin it. We didn't know just like you if there were any more terrorists on those planes, but we were not afraid like the USA, we said "sure, we'll handle it" and handle it we did. It's ungrateful people like you that makes the world think of the USA what they do. Thankfully most of us know it's simply the current administration that doesn't have a clue as to what they're doing and not America as a whole.

Anyway, I really don't like debating you Corneliu, half the time you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're usually wrong and it takes you a few days to get up to speed with current Republican newspeak... so say what you want, I'm sure someone else formed their opinion on this that you are only too happy to call your own!

Canada could of refused the request. We didn't. And we also treated your people better than you treat them as been shown in the last week of the debacle known as "Katrina" Canada could of closed it's airspace too.

Bullshit. I don't see Canada opening up their borders to refugees. I see every state in the union doing so. I see people reaching out to help those in need here in this country. Don't give me your canadian is better shit because it isn't going to fly with me.

Then all those planes that were already in your airspace would of had to land in your country as Canada could of refused to let them land in Canada.

You could've done it but you didn't. Besides, once an airspace is closed with military patrols, anyplane that gets close would've been warned off and if they didn't break off.....BOOM!

Don't try and spin it.

Look whose talking. Don't try and spin it. I'm not spinning it! The only one spinning here is you and I'm tired of it.

We didn't know just like you if there were any more terrorists on those planes, but we were not afraid like the USA, we said "sure, we'll handle it" and handle it we did. It's ungrateful people like you that makes the world think of the USA what they do. Thankfully most of us know it's simply the current administration that doesn't have a clue as to what they're doing and not America as a whole.

Well pardon us for closing down our airspace. It was the only proper thing to do in a tragedy such as that. And nice jab at Bush. It was uncalled for so why don't you take your political hackery and stuff it where the sun dont shine.

Anyway, I really don't like debating you Corneliu, half the time you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're usually wrong and it takes you a few days to get up to speed with current Republican newspeak... so say what you want, I'm sure someone else formed their opinion on this that you are only too happy to call your own!

I don't like debating you either because your nothing but a blindfolded and brainwashed hack that it is rather pathetic.

Corneliu - hahahahaha! Darn kids! Ah well. ;)

Children, calm down. Canada has helped the US out on many occations, but neither do we owe our survival to them. That being said, there is not a state of war between the two countries, as some seem to think. We get along. You should too. Or at least be civil towards each other.

And thank you for the correction about Viet Nam and China. The revised statement:

We wanted a base of operations in Southeast Aisa, and we wanted the rubber supplies. We didn't get those things.

They wanted the US out, and to be in control of their country. They got those things.

Canada has helped the US out on many occations, but neither do we owe our survival to them.

Exactly. The same as Canada doesn't owe it's survival to the USA. Only difference is Canada keeps helping the USA and Canada has never needed the help of the USA. Yet there will always be ungrateful people. Tis life I suppose.

The Viet Cong peasent force handed the US army's asses to them pretty well. And the French before that. And the Japanese before that. And the French before that....
Actually after Tet, the VietCong were utterly and completely smashed. Ex post Tet, the main enemy combatant was the NVA, equipped with stuff they got from the USSR and PRC. The VC were militarily destroyed by the US army. The NVA wasn't (although, if we hadn't been concerned about Chinese intervention, and Soviet responses and the like, we could have done a number on North Vietnam, won the war, and done a little jig. But real life is tougher than that, because we did have to be concerned with the PRC and USSR, and we couldn't invade the North, cut of the NVA and do a jig.)

The US didn't get it's ass handed to it by the VC or NVA, we got our asses handed to us by the intransigent RVN civilians, the growing distaste of the American people on the home front, and general global hostility to the American action in Vietnam. In fact the RVN did not fall until after the US pulled out completely, and the NVA broke the peace treaty. Just my opinion though.

Exactly. The same as Canada doesn't owe it's survival to the USA. Only difference is Canada keeps helping the USA and Canada has never needed the help of the USA. Yet there will always be ungrateful people. Tis life I suppose.

We're all interconnected, we both help each other in many invisible ways.

Although I cannot, off the top of my head, think of something spacific the US had done to help Canada.....

A standing army is a liability, it serves no purpose othat than as a money sink.

Until, of course, you're presented with a problem where WMDs would be gross overkill or an inappropriate response.

There is a good reason even nations maintain a standing force of arms, I just wish the rest of you would realize that. Pick up a book one of these days, you may actually learn something :D

No... it's because there is nothing worthwhile in Canada that we can't get from someplace else. What am I going to get there? Smart people? Please, even the trees are more intelligent...

Knock on wood anyone?

What's with the anti-Canada hate? Don't be an asshole.

Yes, I can. You know why? Because you guys ruined the chance for the Vietnam to become a peaceful democratic Nation, all because you have no balls and aren't willing for some blood to be shed. It is because you stole the will of the government to use greater force to stop the communists, all because of a few civilians getting killed because they lived near military bases. The only thing the anti-war movement can do right is roll a joint. And now you guys are doing it again in Iraq, WHY DON'T YOU WANT THEM TO BECOME A DEMOCRACY? WHY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Everyone who is against the war to fight for Iraq's freedom are nothing more then traitors to the cause of Freedom and Democracy for all humankind. This forum is filled with people like that, I don't think even Auschitw could take care of all of them in day! So if you are against this war go fight with the insurgents!!!Hell you tell everyone who support this war to go join in the fight so why don't you do the same, I'm sure the insurgents can use you guys.

Now all you anti-war fukas can go fuka off!

Good Day Everyone!!!


"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!!"

On a final note, if you are a nation like America, with a bunch of cheap corrupt arseholes who don't give a flying fuka about it's poorest, you can project an army halfway across the world but can't help it's people in time when a natural disaster occurs.

All of you need to calm down, now. The cheap shots can stop, or else you can expect to see some warnings handed out. Got it?

WHY DO YOU THINK WE'VE NEVER BEEN INVADED?

Learn your US history please, the United States has been invaded, by Great Britain during the War of 1812

I did but I do have to set the record straight. Also, if you truly want to get technical. We were invaded during WWII with Guam and the invasion in Alaska.

Dammit, I forgot about those :(

Learn your US history please, the United States has been invaded, by Great Britain during the War of 1812

And the Confederates in the Civil War and by Japan during World War II!

And how the hell is it "people like Kerry's" fault? You mean soldiers who went back for 2 more tours of duty after their origonal enlistment was up?
I don't care how may tours he he had. I'm saying its his fault for coming home, sitting in front of congress, and saying that all the Americans over their were baby killers ,murders, horrible evil psychos that "pillaged villages reminiscient of Ghengis Kahn.

Telling the American people that there sons are all murerous bastards helped no one but the Viet Kong.

~EDIT~ Hey Euroslavia, would this be considered innapropriate? I've turned over a new leaf, and I don't want any more black marks.

I don't care how may tours he he had. I'm saying its his fault for coming home, sitting in front of congress, and saying that all the Americans over their were baby killers ,murders, horrible evil psychos reminiscient of Ghengis Kahn.

Telling the American people that there sons are all murerous bastards helped no one but the Viet Kong.

John Kerry only served 4 months in Vietnam. He abandoned his command as soon as he could. He came home and threw his medals away and joined the anti-war movement, but campained as a vet and a hero.

Any wonder most of the military voted against him?

Go Caribel

Go Caribel
Aren't you bored yet?

The reasoning behind why military spending is high and neccessary can be seen in the US Army's NTC (National Training Command) in Ft Erwin, CA. NTC has a dedicated Arny unit designed to fight a Soviet style battle (even though the Soviet Union is no more, many potential enemies use the same tatics), this is known as OPFOR (Opposing Force). The fort is located in the desert, and armor and mechanized infantry units rotate into NTC to train against OPFOR. What takes place over 1-2 weeks is a series of battles using MILES gear (can't remember exact meaning of MILES, but its like laser-tag game). Many units going through NTC say it is the hardest fight they've ever experienced and makes actual battle seem easier by comparison. OPFOR is considered the best Soviet style Motarized Rifle Regiment in existence. NTC is one of the reasons why US armor units were able to utterly destroy Iraqi armor units in Desert Storm and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Another reason was of course better technology. Another training site is in Ft Polk, LA. This is JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Command) this is geared for infantry level training and also adds psyops and civil affairs to the scenario.
Every time the US has dramatically reduced military levels and spending, the military suffers in the next war. Examples will be given if no one understands this fact.

All of you need to calm down, now. The cheap shots can stop, or else you can expect to see some warnings handed out. Got it?

Sorry.

I don't care how may tours he he had. I'm saying its his fault for coming home, sitting in front of congress, and saying that all the Americans over their were baby killers ,murders, horrible evil psychos that "pillaged villages reminiscient of Ghengis Kahn.

Telling the American people that there sons are all murerous bastards helped no one but the Viet Kong.

~EDIT~ Hey Euroslavia, would this be considered innapropriate? I've turned over a new leaf, and I don't want any more black marks.

1) He did not say *every* US soldier did that, he said that it happened.

2) If it was true, it's good that he said it! It happened, it had to be told.

Don't get mad at the guys who told what they saw, get mad at the ones who killed babies and pillaged villages

1) He did not say *every* US soldier did that, he said that it happened.

2) If it was true, it's good that he said it! It happened, it had to be told.

Don't get mad at the guys who told what they saw, get mad at the ones who killed babies and pillaged villages

Yep and Kerry even confessed to committing warcrimes. Nice to know we have a guy who is on record stating he committed warcrimes in the United States Senate.

Yep and Kerry even confessed to committing warcrimes. Nice to know we have a guy who is on record stating he committed warcrimes in the United States Senate.

Yup, sucks, don't it. But I fail to see how that has any berring on weather or not he should have reported the war crimes he saw.

I still say blame the folk who committed the crimes, not those who reported them. (yes, I realise Kerry did both, and I'm not a big Kerry fan, but people on this forum seem to be more angry that he told of the atrocities then that he took part in them)

Actually....no. It prevents other nations from attacking us with nukes. Its called nuclear Deterrent. You can destroy us, we can destroy you. Its called Mutually assured Destruction.

What if you have a non-nuclear nation attacking and threatening. You really can't threaten to use nukes unless they use WMD. Instead, you have to rely on a conventional force to take care of this threat.

This is something that you don't seem to understand. Yes we have nuclear weapons but we still have a conventional force.


Sort of how we waited for japan to use "WMD"s against us, right?

The nuclear deterrent is a thousand times more effective in deterring conventional war than it is in deterring nuclear war.

The US and the soviets spent decades trying to figure out whether or not they could win a nuclear war, it was a given that they could not simply invade.

The nuclear deterrent is a thousand times more effective in deterring conventional war than it is in deterring nuclear war.

The US and the soviets spent decades trying to figure out whether or not they could win a nuclear war, it was a given that they could not simply invade.Nope. Both sides of the cold war planned for invasion using conventional forces. Both sides spent decades trying to figure out how far they could invade without triggering nuclear action on the part of the other side and how much they would allow the other side to invade before resorting to nuclear weapons. There are numerous books written about how to calculate the nuclear threshold, the level at which a nuclear nation will resort to nuclear weapons, I sugest trying to find a few if you believe that nuclear weapons deter all attacks. In brief however, the assumption is that a nuclear power will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power unless it's survival is at stake.

Sort of how we waited for japan to use "WMD"s against us, right?

The nuclear deterrent is a thousand times more effective in deterring conventional war than it is in deterring nuclear war.

The US and the soviets spent decades trying to figure out whether or not they could win a nuclear war, it was a given that they could not simply invade.

Go learn something about Military Tactics. Then you can come back to me in regards to military strategy. Apparently you know jack about military strategy or thinking as well as strategic forces.

When you become more versed in it then maybe you will understand why we still have a conventional standing army.

Go learn something about Military Tactics. Then you can come back to me in regards to military strategy. Apparently you know jack about military strategy or thinking as well as strategic forces.

When you become more versed in it then maybe you will understand why we still have a conventional standing army.


Can you explain? It doesnt look like you can, since you havent.

Nope. Both sides of the cold war planned for invasion using conventional forces. Both sides spent decades trying to figure out how far they could invade without triggering nuclear action on the part of the other side and how much they would allow the other side to invade before resorting to nuclear weapons. There are numerous books written about how to calculate the nuclear threshold, the level at which a nuclear nation will resort to nuclear weapons, I sugest trying to find a few if you believe that nuclear weapons deter all attacks. In brief however, the assumption is that a nuclear power will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power unless it's survival is at stake.


So what you're saying is that the threat of nuclear retaliation deterred conventional attacks.


There have been no conventional invasions of nuclear powers since ww2. I think the assumption is that if you try to attack a nuclear power, nuclear retaliation is an acceptable response. The idea is to deter the attack to begin with, and the idea has worked stunningly as long as its been around.

Sort of how we waited for japan to use "WMD"s against us, right?

The nuclear deterrent is a thousand times more effective in deterring conventional war than it is in deterring nuclear war.


Well Japan was trying to develop an atomic bomb. The project was in Manchuria...can't exactly recall the exact name of the facility or the unit doing the research...I'll look it up in a few minutes. Germany was shipping some uranium to Japan by U-Boat when V-E Day occured, the U-Boat captain surrendered to the US.

Nuclear deterrence only works for other WMD attacks. It is US policy to only use nukes if attacked with nukes, chemical or biological weapons. The US policy is to never use chemical or biological weapons again. Even riot control agents (tear gas need approval from the president).

EDIT: here's the site for Japan's atomic bomb project, the first 3 papragraphs are what I'm talking about:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/ (http://)

So what you're saying is that the threat of nuclear retaliation deterred conventional attacks.


There have been no conventional invasions of nuclear powers since ww2. I think the assumption is that if you try to attack a nuclear power, nuclear retaliation is an acceptable response. The idea is to deter the attack to begin with, and the idea has worked stunningly as long as its been around.
Yes, it deterred them but didn't make them unthinkable. Actually and the UK (another nuclear power) had a big todo with Argentina, and during the 1973 War Israel is considered to have had 13 nuclear warheads. Deterence by virtue of having nuclear weapons is only effective if the attacker feels they are not going to risk nuclear retaliation or feel the nuclear retaliation is woth the cost.

As for the assumption that a nuclear power is justified in retaliating against a conventional attack, not on this planet. The concensus feeling is that nuclear weapons are only justified in response to a non-conventional attack (the old no first use doctrine, also look at the concepts of limited nuclear war and nuclear escalation). We have to consider the possibility of unjustified use, sure it is not right to use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by we know darn well the US is not going to sit back and allow itself to be taken over by conventional forces.

The fact of the matter is that nuclear deterrence is not an absolute, nations are perfectly willing to attack nuclear nations if they calculate that they are not risking destruction by doing so. These calculations are as perfect as the calculations nations make when going to war, after all no nation would start a war they know they are going to lose - why Germany won both the World Wars.

As for whether or not nuclear deterence has been effective at preventing the US from being invaded, well we can never know. Economic domination of the world may be the reason, the massive number of arms in civilian handds may be the reason, or the simple fact that people cannot be arsed to cross an ocean to invade us. As with all prophylactic measures, the effectiveness of nuclear deternece can be determined through it's failures.

Can you explain? It doesnt look like you can, since you havent.

I'd be typing all day if I had to explain it to you! Obviously you don't know anything in regards to the military. If you did, you wouldn't be making statements like the ones you've been making.

Per soldier, ?

of federal income tax dollars, about 1/2.
(not including Afghanistan & Iraq extras.)
current & past military

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm


does not include the gov't deception
of including Social Security Trust Fund
since that is collected and spent seperately.
Also gov't attempts to hide vets benefits, medical, and retirement
under the human needs portion of the budget.
Also a % of the national debt is also part of military spending, interest.

Can you explain? It doesnt look like you can, since you havent.

I'll give this a shot.

The use of nukes in WWII was an example of using an overwelming attack to break an enemies morale. If you know anything about the Pacific Theater of operations, which by your question you don't, the estimations of what it would cost to invade the island of Nippon itself would cost over a MILLION casualties on both sides and add few more years to the war.

DO NOT make the mistake of confusing modern cultures and societies with the cultures of the time. The culture of Japan at the time made surender unthinkable, until the bomb made them realize that we had a weapon that there was no defense against. Remember, we had to drop 2 nukes before Japan surrendered.

that's it in a very simplified version. If you need more of an explaination, I'll be happy to provide it.

Nope. Both sides of the cold war planned for invasion using conventional forces. Both sides spent decades trying to figure out how far they could invade without triggering nuclear action on the part of the other side and how much they would allow the other side to invade before resorting to nuclear weapons. There are numerous books written about how to calculate the nuclear threshold, the level at which a nuclear nation will resort to nuclear weapons, I sugest trying to find a few if you believe that nuclear weapons deter all attacks. In brief however, the assumption is that a nuclear power will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power unless it's survival is at stake.

I've seen several plans on what it would take to invade the US from just about any direction. Due to our terrain and local cultures, this would the death of a thousand cuts for just about any invader.

I'd be typing all day if I had to explain it to you! Obviously you don't know anything in regards to the military. If you did, you wouldn't be making statements like the ones you've been making.


No, you shall explain it concisely or concede the point.

This blathering ad hominem you insist on repeating doesnt offer any insight into what you purport to know or understand.

I've seen several plans on what it would take to invade the US from just about any direction. Due to our terrain and local cultures, this would the death of a thousand cuts for just about any invader.
Yep, there were plans for defense of the US and plans to assault the US. In truth we will never know if Soviet plans to invade the US without triggering a nuclear would have been sucessful or whether or not the US defense plans would have been sucessful or whether a nuclear war would have broken out. Switch the US and Soviet in the previous sentence and it is also true. What we do know is that neither side was sure enough of their sucess to actually invade the other. Plans and estimations are just plans and estimations, the only way to be sure of how close they are to reality is to test them in reality. Napoleon's plans were that he could get to Moscow and take out the Russians before winter and that the cossacks were no threat, we all know how well that worked out for him.

Yep, there were plans for defense of the US and plans to assault the US. In truth we will never know if Soviet plans to invade the US without triggering a nuclear would have been sucessful or whether or not the US defense plans would have been sucessful or whether a nuclear war would have broken out. Switch the US and Soviet in the previous sentence and it is also true. What we do know is that neither side was sure enough of their sucess to actually invade the other. Plans and estimations are just plans and estimations, the only way to be sure of how close they are to reality is to test them in reality. Napoleon's plans were that he could get to Moscow and take out the Russians before winter and that the cossacks were no threat, we all know how well that worked out for him.

Never studied any of the plans to invade russia, but yes i do know that several different plans were drawn up. I'm just glad that the threat was great enough to keep the fighting of the cold war done by proxy.

I'm less worried about the the nukes that we know about and more worried about the amount of nuclear material that has gone missing from former Soviet bloc countries.

Never studied any of the plans to invade russia, but yes i do know that several different plans were drawn up. I'm just glad that the threat was great enough to keep the fighting of the cold war done by proxy.

I'm less worried about the the nukes that we know about and more worried about the amount of nuclear material that has gone missing from former Soviet bloc countries.

aye