Post: #26

(06-14-2014 05:29 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  A older mate of mine has a rule of thumb he uses for choosing guys he wants to associate with: "It's WWII. We're storming a french chateau. I need to make a run for the wall to plant the explosives to breach it. Can I look at the guy in front of me, and trust him to keep his shit together to lay down covering fire as I make a run for it?"

Obviously, all of us would think this guy was up for the task:

Well, luckily it's not the 1940s and that guy wouldn't have signed up for an infantry unit during a war.

I think we can all agree that the baseline toughness of the average American guy has dropped since WWII.

There are also a few other facts to point out though, such as our military and warfare itself completely changing in the last 70 years.

Just one example being the establishment of the entire USSOCOM and all of the forces that comprise it.

And again, we're comparing our soldiers to the Chinese, who aren't exactly paragons of masculinity.

Post: #27

(06-14-2014 06:57 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  There might be a war...

Lots of badasses on this forum...

I'll let you guys sign up while I'm in South Thailand.

Peace.

Some men are badasses, others not -- so what? What does that kind of personal nonsense have to do with the larger meanings of war and the consequences of the stale peace experienced after its prolonged absence?

Let's try to keep a thread out of the male insecurity gutter for once -- badassery or the lack thereof are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Post: #28

(06-14-2014 06:49 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 06:23 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Or an actual invasion of the mainland US? And which country do you believe capable of that?

There isn't one. Not without either possessing and using an unheard of weapon, or possessing and using an unheard of method of transporting troops and supplies across an ocean.

Those were my thoughts as well.

Has their been a situation where a war dethroned a superower without them being invaded (at least in recent history)? Are they just going to smash a massive military against a brick wall until it's nothing?

I definitely understand the argument that a war would be hard to actually win, like I mentioned, but I don't see how the US would be dethroned as a superpower over a failed war when there is always the option of cutting losses and withdrawing.

Post: #29

(06-14-2014 07:01 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Agreed on all counts -- that is why I noted in the OP that we are likely to suffer initial setbacks before prevailing decisively.

Agreed.

Civil War: Bull Run, Seven Days, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, etc.

WWI: Basically the first few months, where the US tried to do what the British and French had failed doing in 1914.

WWII: Kasserine, basically everything against the Africa Korps before El Guettar. Also, refer to our stalemate at Anzio.

Korea: Task Force Smith and the first few months before the landing at Inchon. The Choisin Reservoir as well.

Vietnam: Ia Drang Valley (a battle the US won, but learned valuable lessons from), the defense against the Tet Offensive.

Iraq: Fallujah.

Post: #30

(06-14-2014 07:09 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Those were my thoughts as well.

Has their been a situation where a war dethroned a superower without them being invaded (at least in recent history)?

Depends, do you consider pre-World War I Germany a superpower? Do you consider the British Empire a superpower prior to World War II? If you do, then the answer is yes.

Post: #31

(06-14-2014 07:16 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:09 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Those were my thoughts as well.

Has their been a situation where a war dethroned a superower without them being invaded (at least in recent history)?

Depends, do you consider pre-World War I Germany a superpower? Do you consider the British Empire a superpower prior to World War II? If you do, then the answer is yes.

Yeah, my wording was awful there.

When I say invasion, I meant more about the war reaching their soil. Not necessarily an actual ground invasion. I think Osiris got my meaning but invasion obviously isn't the correct term there.

Could China, Russia, whoever actually reach the mainland US with a missile, plane, what have you with enough consistency to inflict any lasting damage.

The countries you mentioned were both bombed, and the fighting and threat of full scale invasion was looming on their doorstep the entire time.

I don't see how anything less than that would be enough to dethrone a superpower.

Post: #32

(06-14-2014 07:16 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Depends, do you consider pre-World War I Germany a superpower? Do you consider the British Empire a superpower prior to World War II? If you do, then the answer is yes.

Germany regained its status a decade and a half later, to the worlds lament...

Britain mitigated their losses pretty well. Churchill, Atlee, Eden, and Macmillan worked hard to build the "special relationship" between the UK and the US. It wasn't until the Suez Crisis that both the UK and France really lost their status for sure. They're still top world powers, neither has descended into Somalia-like clan warfare. What people get wrong about an international loss of power and prestige is that it rarely upends the social order completely.

Without invasion, empires decline, they don't burn out overnight.

Post: #33

A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

Post: #34

Military power is all the US has left.

It reminds me of that scene in "Training Day" when Denzel Washington says "King Kong aint got shit on me!" and everybody just kind of ignores him, not taking him seriously at all.

Its the rallying cry of a dying nation. Unfortunately, Americans have nothing else to gather around, so they beat off to the drum of their own "greatness."

Post: #35

Peregrine, interesting to note how your post distills an assurance of the coming war. That is as it should be.

No one has anything against the Chinese, by the way -- at least I do not. We are all just fulfilling our destinies.

Post: #36

(06-14-2014 07:49 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Could China, Russia, whoever actually reach the mainland US with a missile, plane, what have you with enough consistency to inflict any lasting damage.

The countries you mentioned were both bombed, and the fighting and threat of full scale invasion was looming on their doorstep the entire time.

I don't see how anything less than that would be enough to dethrone a superpower.

I don't believe that the Germans were bombed during WWI, at least in any real sense. As for China and Russia being able to reach the US with missiles or planes, I think the Russians could do it with missiles. I don't believe the Chinese could.

Post: #37

I once met a croatian girl. She told me some stories about balkans war. It was no fun listening to her while she was crying about her mom and dad being killed and she being left alone in the world with 5 years old.

There are some things we´ve been hearing on this forum such as American empire or US having the most lethal army in history. There was only one empire: The romans. The US has no empire or is the center of an empire. Not surprising this erroneous notion when they call world series to their baseball final.
There is one prevalent nation which is US, but that doesn´t mean there´s an empire. Throughout history one nation or several have always been prevalent.

Roma was the only center of an true empire in human history.

Romans conquered the best and most advanced nations in their time. They´ve conquered by force and because they were more advanced in many areas. Not only military.

In the 90´s american series were really great. Knight rider, A team, the angel, baywatch, Macgyver. There was a underlying factor one all these series. Doing good for others. Nowadays the US series are utter shit. I still watch some of them, but in general they lack purpose. A rejection of american values will start to develop. Some things I read here which happen in US is mindblowing.

Americans have never been really tested. Nor they will. It could have happened with Soviet Union but didn´t. The US could have opened a full blown war with the soviets but never did. Why? because they would have both lost since they would become weakened. Probably another european country would have emerged as superpower.

I´ve already met some war fanatics in my lifetime. Normally those are the ones who can´t throw a punch.

Back to the OP. The drums of war are beating. If a war in the pacific happens nobody will now the outcome.

Chinese are getting stronger and stronger. And for a chinese government wiping out 30-40 millions of their citizens would be something desirable. Just recently a law was passed in a province forbiding chinese to bury their loved ones. All chinese shall be cremated after the 1st of June 2014. There´s no land available to bury chinese.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...urial.html

When a war happens you roll the dice.

Post: #38

(06-14-2014 08:07 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Military power is all the US has left.

It reminds me of that scene in "Training Day" when Denzel Washington says "King Kong aint got shit on me!" and everybody just kind of ignores him, not taking him seriously at all.

Its the rallying cry of a dying nation. Unfortunately, Americans have nothing else to gather around, so they beat off to the drum of their own "greatness."

Well, we still have Family Guy. Too bad you're not a fan...

I do appreciate, however, seeing a truly belligerent Canadian. It reminds me of that passage in Dr. Johnson about female preachers:

Quote:I told him I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach. Johnson: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Boswell: Life

Post: #39

(06-14-2014 08:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Peregrine, interesting to note how your post distills an assurance of the coming war. That is as it should be.

No one has anything against the Chinese, by the way -- at least I do not. We are all just fulfilling our destinies.

Certainly. I agree that we're fixing to fight within 10 years. Anyone's guess as to what specific event sets off the growing powder keg.

Second comment was an indirect response to Enigma's "And again, we're comparing our soldiers to the Chinese, who aren't exactly paragons of masculinity." No harm done, just wanted to get the other side on record.

Post: #40

(06-14-2014 08:01 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

操你妈!

You've experienced Chinese infrastructure right? If their military is anything like the rest of the country, any fight between China and the US will be over quick. In addition to Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as allies, since the Korean War, American policy makers have referred to usage of "massive retaliation" when considering how to respond to a direct Chinese attack on American forces.

Post: #41

(06-14-2014 07:07 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Some men are badasses, others not -- so what? What does that kind of personal nonsense have to do with the larger meanings of war and the consequences of the stale peace experienced after its prolonged absence?

Let's try to keep a thread out of the male insecurity gutter for once -- badassery or the lack thereof are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Sorry for trolling your thread. I meant to say something on the Atlantic Invasion thread but I've been a bit lazy to sit down and write my thoughts.

I'm a big history fan (minor at uni) and used to love theorizing about potential military conflicts when I was younger. I used to even go to that Global Fire Power website and read about the military of different countries.

Nowadays I don't really see the point. Yes, it could be a chip on my shoulder as my medical past would probably exempt me from enlistment or a draft. On the other hand, I'm a gun owner with a CDL and foreign language knowledge which any efficient military could probably put to use.

I spend my summers in a small town surrounded by two army posts and an air base. Almost every business has a "We support our troops" sign and whenever their is a proposed withdrawal of troops, the whole place goes apeshit with anti-gov't rallies and shit.

This shit has to stop. The military-industrial complex is strong in this country. Yes, we have the strongest military in the history of the world. We also just got ground down by a bunch of goat herders in a godforsaken desert.

Taleb's Black Swan talks quite a bit about the nature and purpose of warfare. Remember, he himself hid in a basement for a significant amount of time during the Lebanese Civil War. His basic conclusion is that war is completely unpredictable and without a doubt one of the worst ways to liberate/convince/make/force other people to do what you want. I think we have seen that premise vindicated in the last 15 years...?

As for an invasion of this continent...it could happen but it is very unlikely. But occasionally Black Swans do fly. I guess the attack on Pearl Harbor was unexpected as well.

We also have to take into account the fact that fourth generation combat will put more and more of our "battles" in the electronic realm of the internet and cyberspace. Any conflict between superpowers will increasingly be through electronic sabotage. A more mechanized (drones) army means that most of our Army will be fat slobs eating pizza and dropping bombs from behind keyboards.

The thing that sometimes gets me about RVF is the number of guys on here who are about male self-improvement and the exchange of information who are heavily invested in one country/language/currency/occupation/type of woman. If I've learned anything from the Lifestyle and Everything Else sections of this forum, it's that, in the face of uncertainty and Decline in the West, there are a few things everyone ought to be doing:

1) Applying for a passport. 95% of Americans don't have one and I'd bet money that over half of this forum doesn't either.

2) Completely pay off debt. Most people have credit card debt if not mortgage and loans. If you owe money, you are working for someone else. If we do go into some kind of police state mode, those in debt will be at the mercy of the State and who knows, we might see some debtor prisons pop up here and there.

3) Diversifying their currency/commodity holdings. When you travel, bring some Euro/ruble/Baht back with you and keep it in the safe. If you can't buy some gold, buy some silver.

4) Learning another language. Duh.

5) Gaining knowledge of another profession or industry. Location-independent jobs don't usually pay that well but at least you have the option if you one day decide to pack your bags and look for greener grass in another country.

Again, not to highjack the thread. I would probably have created quite a few Armageddon threads a few years back but when I see the "rifle behind every blade of grass" and the "we would be fighting in the streets of Savannah, Georgia to repel the invaders!" comments I just sigh

Post: #42

(06-14-2014 08:12 PM)Pepini Wrote:  There was only one empire: The romans.

I thought historically the roman empire was nowhere near the biggest, or even top 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...population

Post: #43

Quote:As for China and Russia being able to reach the US with missiles or planes, I think the Russians could do it with missiles. I don't believe the Chinese could.

Both China and Russia could. Submarines help.

(06-14-2014 08:17 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:01 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

操你妈!

You've experienced Chinese infrastructure right? If their military is anything like the rest of the country, any fight between China and the US will be over quick. In addition to Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as allies, since the Korean War, American policy makers have referred to usage of "massive retaliation" when considering how to respond to a direct Chinese attack on American forces.

Yes I have, and I agree that they're not ready yet. I imagine that things will be different in a few years.

Post: #44

(06-14-2014 08:17 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:01 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

操你妈!

You've experienced Chinese infrastructure right? If their military is anything like the rest of the country, any fight between China and the US will be over quick. In addition to Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as allies, since the Korean War, American policy makers have referred to usage of "massive retaliation" when considering how to respond to a direct Chinese attack on American forces.

China is developing surface-to-sea missiles capable of flying under the radar and then crashing through and sinking an aircraft carrier. This risk is pushing the US Navy and its aircraft carriers further out to sea. We would have another Pearl Harbor moment if we thought we could sail into the Straights of Taiwan and quell some sort of conflict between China and our Taiwanese allies.

Post: #45

I would like to try to rescue the thread from its more or less interesting derailment.

My point in the OP was not to "beat the drums of war" or call for war. It was not a call for anything. Nor was the point to assert US military superiority or otherwise.

I made a number of basic observations, in brief:

1. The true purpose of war is misunderstood. Mankind engages in wars to put itself in situations of combat pressure that catalyze spurts of explosive technological progress.

2. The late stages of a very extended peacetime -- the stale peace which we are in now -- are characterized by a sense of societal decay and decline, as men lose their purpose and focus, women become crazed and uncontrollable, and society as a whole occupies itself with relative trivia and is gripped by excessive caution and risk aversion.

3. But these seemingly inexorable trends are obliterated by major conflicts that restore men's sense of purpose and put women in their proper place, while spurring periods of explosive progress, innovation, and growth.

4. Such a conflict is coming -- a major global conflict, not a civil war. The stale peace will not last forever. Savor its sickly sweet rot while you can.

Post: #46

(06-14-2014 08:23 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:12 PM)Pepini Wrote:  There was only one empire: The romans.

I thought historically the roman empire was nowhere near the biggest, or even top 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...population

If Brazil plays agains Suriname they will probably defeat it for 12-0. Does this mean Brazil is the best team in the world? Even though they had the biggest goal difference. No.

If Brazil plays against Spain, Germany, Italy, and wins 12-0 to each one of them then yes it´s the best team in the world.

You gotta beat the best to be the best.

Post: #47

I think a major pressure point will be the question of whether the USA would actually intervene in Asia in support of their allies/vassals South Korea, Japan, Philippines. I don't think China would start a war if they were sure that the USA would in fact intervene. But they might start something to test the waters.

Post: #48

(06-14-2014 08:36 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  2. The late stages of a very extended peacetime -- the stale peace which we are in now -- are characterized by a sense of societal decay and decline, as men lose their purpose and focus, women become crazed and uncontrollable, and society as a whole occupies itself with relative trivia and is gripped by excessive caution and risk aversion.

Are you familiar with Strauss and Howe's Generational Theory? They wrote multiple works on the subject, and they're interesting reads. I vaguely-think the first one came out in the early 90's. They'd predict, based upon the current American generation, that they're about to experience a widespread crisis - an unravelling of what society currently is. Based upon past history, they're supposed to be the a generation of Heroes, which seems highly unlikely to my eyes, but maybe crisis will snap them out of their low-resilient mindsets.

Post: #49

AB, I was not familiar with this theory but I looked it up.

Like many such things, it contains a grain of truth -- the general observation that there is a natural cyclicality of generations, and some commonalities between generations that are shaped by major wars, as well as between generations that inherit an extended peacetime. But as usual, this accurate general observation cannot bear the burden of trying to extend it to encompass an impossibly regular pattern of an exact 4 generation cycle, "turnings" and "awakenings" and "prophets" and "nomads" and the like.

The problem with a lot of people's thinking is that they don't know when to stop -- when a particular line of thought has been carried as far as it can be, and any attempt to force it to go any farther is no longer useful. On the other hand, if the purpose is to churn out books and be invited to think tanks, maybe that is a feature not a bug, LOL.

Post: #50

(06-14-2014 09:33 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  AB, I was not familiar with this theory but I looked it up.

Like many such things, it contains a grain of truth -- the general observation that there is a natural cyclicality of generations, and some commonalities between generations that are shaped by major wars, as well as between generations that inherit an extended peacetime. But as usual, this accurate general observation cannot bear the burden of trying to extend it to encompass an impossibly regular pattern of an exact 4 generation cycle, "turnings" and "awakenings" and "prophets" and "nomads" and the like.

The problem with a lot of people's thinking is that they don't know when to stop -- when a particular line of thought has been carried as far as it can be, and any attempt to force it to go any farther is no longer useful. On the other hand, if the purpose is to churn out books and be invited to think tanks, maybe that is a feature not a bug, LOL.

I've had some doubts about the rigidity myself. Social problems characterised the Gilded Age; and the period of WWI didn't lead to a a golden age, but more decadence; and I have been wondering if we're seeing something entirely new with the Millenials - the first generation that shares the value of their parents, and are incapable of reaction.

That being said, I still found it an interesting read.

Noticed this quote by David Bowie the other day, on his 2002 album 'Heathen' that seems related to the sense of staleness and waiting for something to happen to that you're describing.

Quote:Heathen kind of felt right, in as much as it was about the unilluminated mind. It was an idea, a feeling, a sense of what 21st Century man might become if he’s not already: someone who’s lowered his standards spiritually, intellectually, morally whatever…someone who’s not even bothered searching for a spiritual life anymore but who’s completely existing on a materialistic plain. But just using the word “heathen” is kind of less preachy than explaining all that. ‘Cos if you wrote all that on the front of an album cover, nobody would bother buying it, would they?