Does experience really matters?

Does the US military currently have experience fighting a symmetric war against another state?
I'm not talking about terrorist groups, cartels, proxy conflicts, CIA coups, etc.
Because if that's the case, then the current US troops has the same level of experience as China's armed forces.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP is a homosexual

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We're getting alot of /misc/ack spam at the moment.

      Your post takes the moron cake for the week.

      He's not wrong, THOUGH.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We are really good. Conversely, no one else has the experience we do

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there's no such thing as a symmetric war against the united states

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sorry but that's just coping.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's really not. The US is 20+ years ahead of anyone else in air power by volume, tech, and capability. The US has the first, second, and possibly third most powerful air forces in the world. The US has twice as many carriers as the rest of the world combined, or close to, and twice the naval tonnage of China altogether.
        You unironically do not comprehend how peerless the US is.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There has to be a middle point between asymmetric warfare against terrorist groups /guerrillas and symmetric warfare against an equal peer state.
          It's the modern warfare problem.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There has to be a middle point between asymmetric warfare against terrorist groups /guerrillas and symmetric warfare against an equal peer state
            That happened during the American Revolution, Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, the Second Punic War, and many, many other instances

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My gut reaction to that is "Yes, but actually, no."
            If anyone, including a conglomeration/entente/whatever, want to stand toe to toe with the US, the only question is how bloody a nose the US gets before inevitably establishing dominance. Any potential adversary or group of adversaries best bet is to engage in guerilla/asymmetric-like warfare, conserving as much as possible for as long as possible to make -maintaining- dominance as annoying as possible.
            That said, the US will most likely be reaching out to said adversaries to try and manage escalation to avoid WMDs entering the equation.
            If WMDs do enter the equation, it's the same result; the US wins but suffer a broken limb rather than a broken nose, and the adversary ceases existing.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >If WMDs do enter the equation, it's the same result; the US wins but suffer a broken limb rather than a broken nose, and the adversary ceases existing.
              Are the US nuclear weapons really trustworthy at the moment?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You wanna find out?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, I do.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >US nuclear weapons really trustworthy at the moment?
                Yes, they are. It's called "surety".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's the modern warfare problem
            We have a collage for that.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The best at what they do in the US military are the ones who act as OPFOR in training everyone else.
    The US can also afford to train regularly, and in a whole host of situations, scenarios, etc, to the point that the US has units specializing in particular climates, regions, and weather patterns. The US trains at multiple echelons of symmetry and asymmetry alike, and always make sure to put themselves at a disadvantage over the "adversary."
    So, sort of, in the sense that the US has no military peer, so it has to fight itself to gain any experience at all.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >weather patterns
      >mud marines
      No other country.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >to the point that the US has units specializing in particular climates, regions, and weather patterns.
      So does the UK, Brazil, France. And for Russia for all the good that did.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We're getting alot of /misc/ack spam at the moment.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wonder what got blown up this time?

      https://i.imgur.com/eorUdrC.png

      Does the US military currently have experience fighting a symmetric war against another state?
      I'm not talking about terrorist groups, cartels, proxy conflicts, CIA coups, etc.
      Because if that's the case, then the current US troops has the same level of experience as China's armed forces.

      There's a lot of training exercise that goes on that the civilians and normies don't give a frick about, but usually the US at any given time has some kind of joint work with one of its allies or several at once. Now, as much as everyone likes to poke fun at the US and myself included from time to time, they do actually put a lot of effort into these exercises and it will generally be a fairly extensive combined arms up against either another parity combined arms force.
      >These can go on for some time
      >No it isn't fair
      Sometimes they will be on a back foot defense of somewhere with less than optimal equipment, troops or having to face surprise actors and events in the exercise so they're about as 'realistic' as can be done without live fire on anyone. Other times they might be trying to cobble together some kind of marine or airborne assault with also, less than optimal resources so while the US has a lot of stuff it can throw into an exercise, they also practice running 'lean' with maybe not the whole air force or navy or infantry available.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do I have to be in the military to work at a Burger King inside an US military base?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In a .mil base, you just work for Burger King. Dunno how it worked for Bagram or whatever the frick during OIF/OEF days.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Far as I remember they used to just be civ contractors in those things

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the us did a exhibition with captured weapons like Russia did recently they'd have a bunch of Toyotas

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're going to blow out thier knees.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How can I be HOMO?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Symmetric conflicts only exist in videogames and sports

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your post takes the moron cake for the week.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >moron cake
      Mmm, this does sound good! I like cake!

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In some way.
    Real world experience helps find incompetent people who can't adapt and solve real world problems. If military is able to identify and fire this people real world experience helps with increasing quality of the command.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think you're playing fricky word games, but yes, the US military is much better prepared for "symmetric" warfare than anybody else, because it trains constantly in the context of large-scale high-fidelity exercises. The Russians and the Chinese don't do this, though the Chinese are ostensibly trying to replicate US practices.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My Battalion has trained in the arctic, swamps, temperate woodlands, and deserts within the last calendar year alone. Each of those included transition to urban terrain.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You will not get any answer here.
    But enjoy everyone being wrong.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You won't get an answer that 100% paints the picture for multiple reasons, the largest being anyone who knows and cares about the answer isn't someone who would actually post here with a detailed response. Turns out, losing a security clearance over shitposting is pretty stupid.

      The second biggest reason is that you'll get plenty of answers which are pretty close to the truth, but it doesn't matter because everyone here just picks what they like from the (You)s and moves on.

      Anyway, the Pentagon is getting a new restaurant soon, pretty excited for that.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *