Worst terror attacks in history August 3, August 6 and August 9 will mark the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The article then went on to list a number of Russian weapons systems which were clearly superior to their US counterparts when those even existed. The USA definitely has the quantitative advantage, but in terms of quality and training, Russia is way ahead.
So what is going on here? Why do otherwise very well informed people have such totally contradictory views?
To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Still, I am confident that what follows is factually correct and logically analyzed.
To sum up the current state of affairs I would say that the fact that the US armed forces are in a grave state of decay is not as amazing by itself as is the fact that this almost impossible to hide fact is almost universally ignored.
The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies. After WWII the USA was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the USA enjoyed a situation to quasi total monopoly.
That, again, hugely benefited the US armed forces but it soon became clear that in Korea and Vietnam that advantage, while real, did not necessarily result in any US victory.
Following Vietnam, US politicians basically limited their aggression to much smaller countries who had no chance at all to meaningfully resist, nevermind prevail.
If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam see here or here we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countries.
These wars will go down in history as case studies of what happens when politicians believe their own propaganda. While Dubya declared victory as soon as the invasion was completed, it soon became clear to everybody that this war was a disaster from which the USA has proved completely unable to extricate themselves even the Soviets connected the dots and withdrew from Afghanistan faster than the US Americans!
So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: Actually, no, it is not. The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
This means that there is an emerging consensus amongst the countries which the USA tries to threaten and bully into submission that for all the threats and propaganda the USA is not nearly as formidable enemy as some would have you believe.
Why nobody seems to be aware of it The paradoxical thing is that while this is clearly well understood in the countries which the USA is currently trying to threaten and bully into submission, this is also completely ignored and overlooked inside the United States themselves.
This is both true and false. Potential nuclear target countries for the USA can be subdivided into three categories: Countries who, if nuked themselves, could wipe the USA off the face of the earth completely Russia or, at least, inflict immense damage upon the USA China.
Those countries which the USA could nuke with relative impunity but which the USA could also crush with conventional forces making the use of nukes pointless Venezuela, Cuba. And, of course, in all these cases the first use of nukes by the USA would result in a fantastic political backlash with completely unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.
Others would, no doubt, disagree: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless I say almost, because in the real world the USA cannot simply rely on the mental sanity and goodwill of other nations; so, in reality, the US nuclear arsenal is truly a vital component of US national security.
Which leaves the Navy and the Army. The USN still controls the high seas and strategic choke points, but this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially in the context of local wars.
Besides, the USN is still stubbornly carrier-centric, which just goes to show that strategic vision comes a distant second behind bureaucratic and institutional inertia.
As for the US Army, it has long become a kind of support force for Special Operations and Marines, something which makes sense in tiny wars Panama, maybe Venezuela but which is completely inadequate for medium to large wars. Surely that counts for something? Actually, no, it does not.
Ask yourself a simple question: Do you really, sincerely, believe that this has anything to do with national security? If you do, please email me, I got a few bridges to sell to you at great prices!
When these systems are engaged, they are typically engaged against adversaries which are two to three generations behind the USA, and that makes them look formidable.
Not only that, but in each case the US has a huge numerical advantage hence the choice of small country to attack. But I assure you that for real military specialists the case for the superiority of US weapons systems in a joke. The Russian military budget is tiny, at least compared to the US one.
But, as William EngdalDmitrii Orlov and others have observed, the Russians get a much bigger bang for the buck. Not only are Russian weapon systems designed by soldiers for soldiers as opposed to by engineers for bureaucratsbut the Russian military is far less corrupt than the US one, at least when mega-bucks sums are concerned for petty sums of money the Russians are still much worse than the Americans.
Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate to execute the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria achieved.Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred in August , It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with. "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.
The Causes and Effects of the Atomic Bombs: Hiroshima and Nagasaki What is an atomic bomb? The desire to create the atomic bomb was propagated by the discovery that German physicists had learned how to split a uranium atom and thus, could potentially create a deadly weapon.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Part of the Pacific War of World War the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,–, people in Hiroshima and 39,–80, people in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day.
the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and Location: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Empire of Japan. INCONVENIENT TRUTHS "You can either be informed and be your own rulers, or you can be ignorant and have someone else, who is not ignorant, rule over you.". He first became popular when he was banned from Xbox Live; later versions have him reacting to his dog getting killed or about Usain Bolt breaking the m sprint record or .