[cars for sale]

man this makes the nostrils open and breath righeous huh.......and the above is what we ADMIT to....lol

[isthisnickcool]

The Russians were shocked at what we did during the first gulf war. Their generals were told for years that they would beat the US in a ground war. In reality, they didn't have a chance.

[TomGuy]

Now, this can't be true. Remember, just a couple of months ago, the illustrious former x42 gave a speech in which he indicated that the US would soon be on the same level as 3rd world nations.

[and his legacy lives on -- a.k.a., continues to haunt]

[DeFault User]

...while experience has shown that military power can solve only military problems, not political ones.

Yeah, the Ameican Revolution was only a military conflict. Sure. When all else fails, war is the final political solution.

Obviously, military power is not the answer to everything, but the author sees the power principally in a negative light.

[AlaskaErik]

The United States now possesses about 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks, by far the world's strongest armored force.

Although I'm a Zoomie, this amount appears greatly inflated. I'll let the ground pounders come up with a more realistic number.

[xJones]

Yes, we have all that power and can win any war. But they can still snip at us in Baghdad, the Shi'ites can chant and demand us to leave, and Iraqi teen-agers can throw stones at our soldiers, because they know we have our own rules. It does chap me to watch Iraqi shias being incited to yell at our troops, when Saddam would have murdered all of them for the religious ceremony we freed them to enjoy (in their own perverted, bloody way). Our power only goes so far.

[WaterDragon]

We have to continue the SDI program. The first days of the Iraq war proved the feasibility of shooting down incoming missiles.

Once we develop it, the entire world can be brought under the shield, thus rendering nukes from rogue nations impotent. That will make nuclear weapons worthless. At last.

[bert]

.....North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled....

Small light nucs trump all

[Tokhtamish]

I have to step away from the computer for a while. I've got a hard on.

[Rose in RoseBear]

Pingpingping!

[etcetera]

While I agree that the U.S. is the preeminent military power in the world today, there are a few factors undiscussed in this assessment:

1. The U.S was allowed to build its forces close to Iraq unharrassed.

2. The U.S. carrier fleet was not attacked.

3. The U.S. GPS satellite system was not compromised.

4. The U.S. shipping lines were not attacked.

5. The U.S. manufacturing capability was not attacked.

Any military power that would consider future engagements with the U.S. must be looking at these right now.

[NetValue]

The Seattle Times has always been somewhat smug. While it is true we hold technological leads in some areas we still need to work to improve bio and chemical detection, counter- measures, and disposal. We need improved methods to detect underground military facilities and tunnels. Lastly we need an umbrella of protection against high and low trajectory missiles.

[LibKill]

He forgot something:

People

The U.S. military expends great amounts of time and money on training recruits, with good results. Each service branch maintains it's own training schools in addition to interservice schools. Any reasonably bright, literate teenager can be transformed into any kind of clerk, technician, a medic, or a human version of 'The Terminator'.

Officers are even more highly trained. Starting with college graduates the services turn out pilots, commanders, intelligence officers, logistics officers, and infantry officers.

Retention of all types of personnel is reasonably good, adding to an experience pool that the next round of recruits can draw on.

[Faraday]

Now only a nuclear state, like, perhaps, North Korea, has any military leverage against the winner, so, paradoxically, the runaway U.S. victory in the conventional arms race might inspire a new round of proliferation of atomic weapons.

This is an example of a very dangerous (and socialist) view put out by liberals embarassed by American military might. What must also be analyzed is the US battle plan for confronting a state with a modest number of nukes of unknown reliability. My guess is that this would involve using a significant number of moderate yeild nukes in regions of likely housing of the enemy nukes. This would not be a repeat of the targeted siting seen in Iraq that would endeavor to spare the building next door. Nations (and the general public) must understand the consequences of taking the decision to go nuclear. Baghdad is getting its electricity and water back with less than one month's interruption. Pyongyang would likely be vitrified. Reporters who do make this clear are making a bad situation worse.

[Consort]

Our enemies, foreign and domestic, will not employ a military force against us. They will use less honest and more sinister means to do so. They will invade illegally, as Mexico is doing, or legally via our immigration system, or subversively, like the Democrats are doing....

[happygrl]

America will remain great only as long as it remains good.

[Monty22]

We probably have another 20 years of advantage militarily, unless a democrat is elected. At which point they'll do their best to pull another clinton and beat the military down

[Tribune7]

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
who rely on horses,
who trust in the multitude of their chariots
and in the great strength of their horsemen,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
or seek help from the LORD .

Just to keep things in perspective.

[GeorgiaYankee]

"Compared to U.S. military, game over for other nations"

"Game over, man!" Bill Paxton in "Aliens"

"The game is over" Iraqi UN Amb. Mohammed Aldouri in real life.

[Seydlitz]

The kind of wild overstatements made by commentators like Easterbrook are really un-nerving. Are we the biggest, baddest kid on the block? Yes. However, the fact that we can beat any single opponent does not mean that we can beat a combination of opponents. Life is not like a James Bond movie, in which the bad guys attack one at a time. Sometimes, they work together. As the fact of US military dominance sinks in, there will be some unlikely alliances between those who hate us to off-set US advantages.

Moreover, historically, revolutions in military affairs are traditionally short-lived. It should be remembered that Iraq, after twelve years of sanctions, was not the most challenging military foe. In addition, the US military is too small for a real global crisis.

Finally, the US victory in Iraq is as much about low-tech dominance as high-tech gizmos. Training, especially with the MILES equipment, made a critical difference. The Abrams, Bradleys and Warthogs (written-off by the worshippers of high-tech for years) were key in the victory.

Let us not forget that we have no technology that China cannot eventually copy.