Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario
Here's something about your statement that China has the largest army in the world. Sun Tzu's art of war states that numbers mean nothing in war numbers do not equate to military power. Especially in a war on foreign soil. The US hasn't fought a war on the home front since it was founded. Comparing the "Globocop" wars to the most powerful defensive military in the world is just insane. Vietnam was a defeat because we got tired of throwing troops away. All we had to do was MOAB the jungle until nothing existed but we didn't wanna know why? We followed through with what we stood for, even when we aren't the "good guys" in the war we are gonna fight like them. Same with Korea.
Here is a little something for you to imagine. The US has a missile defense system that can shoot anything on our radar. Our radar is so good a tower in Maine can pick up a basketball spinning in Florida. We can handle just about anything at home. The fact that America hasn't had a full on strike at their home front involving actual armies is evidence enough to prove no one wants to directly challenge us outside of their boundaries. You can't win a real war if you can't even attack your enemy's home country.
Actually the US was praised because we weren't like our European allies. We precision bombed, we were the first to do so in a while. The only real bomb we used to kill civilians was the nuke. And well....that was a means to end the war sooner. The British were the ones that "bombed the living hell outta' them."
We shot at railways and trains, he hit factories, we precision bombed tanks in urban war zones. The list goes on.
Just face it you're wrong about the US losing to anyone who would dare to attack them and commit on their homefront. The reason why insurgents win is because they are using meat shields that we don't want to shoot through. The citizens aren't on they're side the citizens coexist with the insurgents. Hard to shoot the right target when all the targets look the same until one pulls out an AK-47 and straps C4 to his chest (stereotypical yes but to the point). Guerrilla warfare is the only way small groups can fight opposing forces and ultimately keep it at a standstill until the larger force gets rougher and plows its way through or they give up not wanting to kill everything.
And no one thought Rome to be unbeatable at its decaying period. Why do you think its own populace decided to rise up and rebel around that time as well. Rome at its prime was unbeatable when it fell the society was already an empty shell.
Wow! False! The United States bombed plenty of cities, including Hamburg and Dresden (yes, the United States took part in Dresden).
The person who says numbers do not matter, obviously has too few men. Numbers do count. Numbers count a lot
. Not only is it a large mass of warm bodies for you to throw endlessly at your enemies, it also has a psychological affect on them as well. If you saw an endless wave of enemies coming toward you defenses, you would break and fall back.
I do not care how any victory was achieved. Lusankya acted as if the U.S military was unbeatable, said there was no one who could beat it. The point is, yes, there are people who can beat it as there have been people who could beat it in the past.
About my Rome comparison. In no way did I directly compare the two armies. I simply stated that they were both considered unbeatable until they were beaten.