Why hasn't the US won a war since WWII? Yet it's more militarized than ever

Why hasn't the US won a war since WWII? Yet it's more militarized than ever.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
twitter.com/AnonBabble

because that war allowed us global dominance

we may seem to only have the united states as our land territory, but our military bases around the world ensure we have far more territory than just our 50 states.

Why win wars when you rule the world
They're now fighting through proxies only, to stop any country from becoming a threat

ww2 was total war. no one gave a shit about bombing the ever loving shit out of civilians

America won in Iraq and Afghanistan, the North Vietnamese were militarily defeated and accepted defeat only to attack when the Americans left. That wasn't winning a war against America. America has never and will NEVER lose a war

Semper fi

Guerilla warfare, obsessive military journalism causing leftist and civilian outcry, pussyfoot tactics trying to spare innocent lives.

We'll never win a war in a guerilla environment, same with any other nation, unless we completely abandon giving a fuck and go back to killing every moving thing on sight. Can't win otherwise.

Lol america will never win a war on its own

1984.

A perpetual state of war ensures a docile and submissive populace that will do whatever it's told. Proxy wars and drawn out conflicts are much better than total war for this purpose

>Ástandið (Icelandic: "the condition" or "the situation") is a term used about the influence British and American soldiers had on Icelandic women during World War II. At its peak the population of foreign soldiers was equal to that of Icelandic men. Many of the foreign soldiers would court Icelandic women and estimates of the number of women who married foreign soldiers goes into the hundreds. Such interaction between Icelandic women and foreign troops was not always well received and the women involved were often accused of prostitution and betraying their home country. Children born to such women are known in Icelandic as ástandsbörn ("children of the condition/situation").

>When the British Army invaded Iceland in 1940 people gathered on the streets to see the troops and the fact that many young Icelandic girls were captivated by them did not go unnoticed.

Sure, bud.

Nobody won in WWII, it's just over. You did good job with lend lease, we was good at fight. Without you we will probably lose war, without us Germans and Japs will easily steamroll Britain and USA.

Killing a shit load of people doesn't necessarily mean you win

The 1st Gulf war was a test bed for US weapons systems and tactics.
We had built up an arsenal, to battle the Soviets, then, ***splot***, they were no longer a threat.
There is only so much feedback you can get out of 'war games'
The Battle of 73 Eastings' was a great example of US firepower and tactics.
Probably the most significant tank battle since the days of Rommel.

>nobody won the war
>we won the war though

Maybe you didn't explain properly?

Actually it does.

We fight in an unwinnable way. Vietnam was on the verge of being won when hippies finally got their way and it ended. If we would have just bombed the shit out of the North we'd have won. There are no rules in war, at least not if you want to win.
>"B-but then how are we any better than the people we're fighting"
It isn't a popularity contest, war is literally a contest to see who can cause more widespread death and destruction. Rules in war is basically sabotaging your chance to win. It is like only fielding 10 men on the field in a football game instead of the allotted 11. Odds are if you only field 10 and the other fields 11 the other team will win.

I'm talking about the War, or Great Patriotic War, it's Eastern front for you.

>Actually it does.
Yeah brawh. We actually won the Vietnam War.

We're exceptionally good tactically, we just have long shot goals and end up losing political will.

Because all of the wars fought since then were never meant to be won, they were meant to be drawn out as long as possible to keep the nation in a state of perpetual warfare

Now why would a nation want to be in a state of perpetual warfare?

Well there's many reasons 1)continues profits for Big Defense 2)an enemy that politicians can pontificate about and point fingers at, also can be used to deflect attention away from whatever back room shit they're trying to pull 3)keeps people on board with whatever the government is doing because afterall, we're at war! To not support us is akin to treason and that just won't do

>We're exceptionally good tactically

KISKA
I
S
K
A

You 're just mad that you lost your family in a drone strike Ahmed

>Actually it does
No it does not. You win a war by completely destroying a country's will to wage war, either by causing widespread death and destruction or dragging a war out until the people lose the will to fight it when they realize the cost it will have.

We lost Vietnam from the latter way. We could have easily won the war by bombing the entire country into submission, they had literally no way to stop us. But we didn't because people here felt it'd be too harsh. That excuse for limiting war capabilities is a contradiction, war by it's very nature is harsh so whenever some cuck tells you you can't bomb civilians they are basically telling you you're not allowed to win.

The stated goal of the Vietnam War was to prevent Vietnam from being taken over by communists and to prevent "domino effect" in the region

That failed miserably

South Vietnam fell to the communists, communist regimes took power in Laos and Cambodia

>b-but muh kill count!
Utterly meaningless if you fail to accomplish your expressed goals

The Vietnam War should've never been fought

>No it does not
>You win a war by killing everyone

If you read my above post you will see we have the same viewpoint.

You said we win by killing the most people, which is wrong. We killed the at a ratio of something like 10 to 1 in Vietnam and lost. We killed the most of them and lost, they dragged the war out and ruined our will to fight and won.

>The Vietnam War should've never been fought
Maybe true, but the war was supposed to be more of a statement against communism. We could have probably won the war barely losing anyone if we would have just bombed the North into the stone age non-stop for months.

Bombing the shit out of the enemy = killing the most people.

Total casualties on both sides of the conflict overall are debated and relatively close, it's not known who actually killed more. But it can be said with 100% confidence that if we unleashed hell upon them like we did on the Germans and Japanese we would have killed more and subsequently won.

You're not getting it dude, killing the most people doesn't mean a damn thing, we already killed the most in Vietnam and we lost.

The point of bombing is to destroy the will to fight. No rice farmer is going to have anything to fight for if you blow his house up and kill his wife and kids. The population would turn against their government because they'd have an unhinged war machine at their throat that they'd be powerless to stop.
>The deaths are about even on both sides
What? No they aren't, we fucking pummeled the North.

This. American military has easily won these wars. The problem is that it couldn't pacify and establish any strong goverments after it. So when general public looses intrest and america leaves these ares go into chaos.

>we already killed the most in Vietnam
>we fucking pummeled the North
>clinging to non-truths

gg, read up and better luck next time.

Lol no, Luftwaffe couldn't win battle of Britain. The Kriegsmarine was hurt badly during the invasion of Norway by the Royal Navy.

They would never get close to our shoreline. English Channel is not suitable for submarines and Luftwaffe had basically no training in anti-warship tactics (and their aerial torpedos were garbage). Any invasion force would of got destroyed by the Home Fleet. It took 4 years for the Western allies to turtle up and plan out the Normandy invasion with 10 times more ships and logistical power.

And USA getting steamrolled? kek no. Amphibious invasion of US would be impossible for Japan.

Plus think of all our guns.. silly Japs.

>Being this fucking stupid
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Again, we pummeled the North.

The wars were never meant to be won and everyone from the shit-sucking privates all the way up to the President knew that

You don't win a war by handing out candy to the kids and cigarettes to the adults
You don't win a war by putting in place extremely restrictive rules of engagement
You don't win a war by worrying about collateral damage

You win a war by brutally crushing the life out of the enemy
Check out the "Anaconda Plan" employed by the union in the civil war and check out William Tecumseh Sherman's thoughts on winning a war

Not to mention the USSR did jack shit against the Japs

Oh geez, are you actually looking for an honest criticism of your country's military? From the top then...

>The US defense contracting system exists not to ensure America has the best military but to funnel tax dollars from general revenue into defense contractor's bank accounts. It is optimized for the latter.
>You haven't been on the same side as Russia since WW2
>guerilla wars are political rather than military in nature, and Americans are not a political people.
>American exceptionalism does not survive contact with the enemy
>Military service is held in contempt by too many americans, even among the political class that relies on military support.
>Those Americans who respect military service absolutely lose their shit when American soldiers actually die in the field
>Training grunts is an afterthought

That's all I can think of right now.

can you expand on that last point

I think I see what you're saying. You mean that Russia won a Pyrrhic victory?

6/10 points

Nice going leaf

Sure, here's a bit more of why I'd say that:
>Americans have probably the best SF, but consequently anyone who's actually good at warfare gets funnelled out of the rank and file.
>The ratio of resources put into equipment versus resources put into training is probably the most asymmetrical of any country in the world.
>Anecdotal, but my Canadian friends who took part in wargames against US infantry found they didn't actually follow their own doctrines
>lack of proper screening and support shows up in suicide statistics. Better preparation should really prevent the majority of this.
>Urbanization means that the average American going into boot camp no longer grows up shooting wild turkeys
>US 'Get'er done' mentality isn't great for skills retention

Again, all I can think of for now.

US military has never lost a war

However, the US doesn't have a flawless foreign policy, so some of the "lost" wars are due to political reasons

North Vietnam got absolutely roasted during the Tet offensive. Had US not decided to pull out, and continued with the offensive, liberating Hanoi, Vietnam would have been a colony of the US in the 70's.

why the fuck isn't this being corrected

They rape

RARE
A
R
E