usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Okay...I don't measure military strength by how much is spent on the military. Does anyone? I measure it by capability.
If someone were to say "we should have the most expensive military," or even that we should have an expensive military," I wouldn't out of hand agree with them.
Well, the US is trying to produce the next generation of technology, so it's expensive. Does that lead to capability? Sure it does. However you only need such capability when you're going around invading and bombing other countries.
Fine, but that still does not allow capability to be measured by expenditures.
No, it doesn't. But if the US spends more than the next 9 countries put together, you'd think they have a good chance. However the US sticks to bullying smaller countries, Iraq, Libya, Syria, never Russia, China, because they know they don't stand a chance of winning.
One'd think, but one cannot be sure. That said, in this day and age, price and capability/quality are not linked the way they used to be. Not that price was ever a definitive indicator of anything other than the size of the dent a purchase would make in one's bank balance. Cases in point:
- Six Days War. -- Israel should have lost.
- Vietnam War. -- U.S. should have won
- Korean War -- This stalemate fiasco reverberates to this day. U.S. should have won.
- War of 1812 -- U.S. should have lost.
- Russian Afghan War -- Russia should have won.
- Revolutionary War -- Brits should have won.
Sure, there's intelligence and there's whether you're fighting at home or not. The US's policy has always been to fight away from home, makes sense, but it harder to conduct operations abroad, and you have to deal with the locals. People fight harder when they've got something to lose, like their home.
Just when did the time period called "always" begin in your mind?