Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blackie wrote:
While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

2) Russia and China are regional powers, not global. Also, the US has not 'LOST' every war in decades.

In Korea, the political will was not there to engage in a full war, so the military was asked to win, but not win too much to cause escalation, and most importantly, do not lose. Essentially ended with removing North Korea out of South Korea, so not sure how that qualifies as a loss.

Vietnam, again, the military was asked to fight with one hand behind its back. If it were free to engage North Vietnam freely, the war would have been over in a short time. And when South Vietnam did fall to the North, the US Military wasn't even in the country.

Desert Storm, essentially fought as a war as should be fought but didn't remove Saddam from power, but that also wasn't the goal either.

Afghanistan and Iraq are more complicated. The US has pulled most of this troops out of both places, so you can't blame them from not winning battles it isn't fighting.

Any war the US hasn't won a complete victory in comes because of the lack of support, clear mission, or meddling by politicians. In a straight up conventional fight, sorry, the US is going to be supreme. And unless someone develops teleportation technology, no war it fights will be anywhere near US soil. That should say something too.

3) When the world uses another currency besides the US dollar as a standard, we can talk more about finance and economics. Even when one pops up from now and then, like the Yen, Euro, or whatever, everyone cries its the end of the dollar, and what happens? Its back to the dollar. The fact that so many others DO invest in our companies and markets also says something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
America isn't the world's leader in food production, not even close. You are top dog on chicken, beef, turkey, maize, cow's milk and soybean.
China's got you beat on pork, sheep, goat, duck and every vegetables but soybean, Russia owns the cereal game.

Actually China AND India produce more overall than the US, but export little of it. The US exports far more than it consumes (2014 numbers couldn't quickly find more recent, but I doubt its changed much):

1 United States $149,122,000,000.00
2 Netherlands $92,845,387,781.00
3 Germany $86,826,895,514.00
4 Brazil $78,819,969,000.00
5 France $74,287,121,198.00
6 China $63,490,864,000.00
7 Spain $50,960,954,460.00
8 Canada $49,490,302,612.00
9 Belgium $43,904,482,740.00
10 Italy $43,756,176,567.00
11 Argentina $37,171,872,677.00
12 India $36,730,472,555.00
13 Indonesia $35,388,703,128.00
14 United Kingdom $32,254,855,325.00
15 Australia $31,983,827,777.00
16 Thailand $30,847,701,710.00
17 Poland $27,695,284,096.00
18 Malaysia $26,007,912,734.00
19 Mexico $25,096,945,000.00
20 New Zealand $24,349,794,600.00
21 Viet Nam $21,735,449,502.00
22 Denmark $21,257,823,712.00
23 Russian Federation $19,774,507,828.00
24 Turkey $17,758,630,434.00
25 Chile $16,969,836,538.00

If you want to nit-pick certain industries go ahead.

I'd like to know according to which piss-poor rating system the US ranks as a world superpower in health. You are solidly entrenched in the lower ranks of modern western countries, in this category.

Again, meant health services. You don't see many Americans rushing to Canada for health services do you?

America hasn't been great for a long while, and it sure doesn't look on it's way to greatness again.

Yeah, when was the last time you were here? And when exactly did you think IT WAS great? Sorry, its still great. And who is going to replace us by setting a new standard anyway?

KTG17 wrote:

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

You're conflating how your healthcare industry works to the US model. Don't do that.

My kidney recipient buddy was 25 yo when she got her transplant. Just out of college, in debt obviously and no job. Guess what? The state's medicaid covered her treatment.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

They are the best in the world, you just have to pay for them. And I know, not everyone can pay for the best treatment available.

And I am not saying there aren't issues. There are lots of issues. But typically QUALITY of care far exceeds most, and is available. Paying for it, well, that is another matter and a hot topic right now.

And btw, I have real issues with the medical industry and especially pharmaceuticals, but that's just me. I would love to see changes in the way people eat, how they exercise, and less reliance on medicine to cure things that can be avoided living a healthy life style. However, most don't, and that in part has made those industries as big as they have.

See? The market place. We're back on that again. Nice little loop there.

But I can assure you, the world is becoming more and more Americanized (as my recent trip to Hong Kong just showed me), so I don't doubt others will be experiencing the same issues soon.

One more point, I went to visit India to meet a team of mine in Mumbai a couple of years ago, and one of our team members got dengue fever just before I got there and had to be hospitalized. She was in the hospital the whole time I was there so we went to visit her, and I was appalled at the hospital. Now, say what you want about India, but this wasn't far off from most hospitals around the world. Those of us living in western countries are very fortunate.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

You're conflating how your healthcare industry works to the US model. Don't do that.

My kidney recipient buddy was 25 yo when she got her transplant. Just out of college, in debt obviously and no job. Guess what? The state's medicaid covered her treatment.

What is the maximum income you can earn before you are no longer covered by medicaid? Then how much would an insurance plan cost which would cover you for all $262k of the first years medical charges?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

They are the best in the world, you just have to pay for them. And I know, not everyone can pay for the best treatment available.

...

She was in the hospital the whole time I was there so we went to visit her, and I was appalled at the hospital. Now, say what you want about India, but this wasn't far off from most hospitals around the world. Those of us living in western countries are very fortunate.

If not everyone can access it then it is not the best. Period.

Case in point: India is one of the health tourism capitals because westerners can travel to it, get into a private hospital and have procedures carried out faster and cheaper than using private medical services at home. But that obviously does not make India's health service better than the health services of countries like the UK or France or Germany, because huge parts of India's population cannot access those services as they are behind a pay wall.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

Actually it correlates to the fact that, despite being a wealthy nation, many of your people do not have access to nutritional food at affordable prices and so have to instead eat junk.

Just to add a bit more here: we the US have higher infant mortality rates than something like 27 other countries... and these are sterling bastions of stability like Greece and the Czech Republic. We have thousands of people each year facing bankruptcy over medical bills, we have among the highest drug costs in the world (I would argue here that we basically subsidize the rest of the world here)

We definitely don't lead the world in education any longer. But hey, we do lead the world in incarceration rates and military budgets.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

Actually it correlates to the fact that, despite being a wealthy nation, many of your people do not have access to nutritional food at affordable prices and so have to instead eat junk.

Just to add a bit more here: we the US have higher infant mortality rates than something like 27 other countries... and these are sterling bastions of stability like Greece and the Czech Republic. We have thousands of people each year facing bankruptcy over medical bills, we have among the highest drug costs in the world (I would argue here that we basically subsidize the rest of the world here)

The infant mortality rate comparison is a misconception as every country counts them differently.

Kinda like comparing FBI crime statistics to UK crime statistics isn't apples-to-apples.

We definitely don't lead the world in education any longer.

That's true.

But hey, we do lead the world in incarceration rates and military budgets.

Also true.

 whembly wrote:

The infant mortality rate comparison is a misconception as every country counts them differently.

The CDC article I read earlier, was published in 2014 using 2010 statistics had additional charts showing that when they eliminated certain categories of infant deaths (in order to get everyone on the same exact data plane) we were still significantly higher.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The infant mortality rate comparison is a misconception as every country counts them differently.

The CDC article I read earlier, was published in 2014 using 2010 statistics had additional charts showing that when they eliminated certain categories of infant deaths (in order to get everyone on the same exact data plane) we were still significantly higher.

Yes, I understand that, but that figure is hotly contested within the healthcare industry.

Case in point. The US is near the top in successfully treating preemies which may have not survived elsewhere. If the preemies do end up not surviving, that's "counted" as an infant mortality within the US institutions. Where as other countries participating in these statistics do not.

There are other variations that can differentiate the statistics.

The CDC really has no firm way of discriminating these sort of datasets, as it's wholly reliant on the participating entities in adhering to record collection policies.

EDIT: not to deviate from the OP... here's some pics of awesome weapontry:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well I noted it anyway...

sebster and Frazzled vs the world...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The British were flying at night. So it would have needed to be not just a long range escort, but also a night fighter. Did anyone have those? I kind of suspect the most kills such an escort would have got would have come from crashing in to their own bombers.

British bombers didn't have close escorts, but they did find it effective to have night fighters ranging away from the main bomber formations and disrupting enemy night interceptors. That job was typically given to the Mosquito. The Mosquito was a pretty awesome plane in its own right, it could carry a 4000lb bomb deep in to Germany at 300mph and faster while the much much larger B17 on a long range mission could only carry 500lbs more for 4500lbs of bombs cruising at around 200mph (though the B17 could carry 8000lbs on a short range mission). It was a Mosquito that knocked out a Berlin broadcasting station taking Hermann Goring off the air during a radio speech.

 Scrabb wrote:
@blackie,

Which of your previous statements am I misunderstanding?

You've always been a huge fan of the United States.

You don't think the United States has the largest economy.

You think the United States is controlling the majority of Europe, including your country (I assume Italy by the flag).

Yeah I like the USA and I think they're among the best countries in the world overall, not perfect and with some huge issues but a great country indeed. But the USA only lead western countries actually, not the entire world. That's what I'm saying. I think china and russia are not inferior in terms of power and resources.

The statistics about the production of food must be clearified because if the majoirty of that "food" is actually junk food (which is actually poison, not food) those numbers tell a different story.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


If not everyone can access it then it is not the best. Period.

Case in point: India is one of the health tourism capitals because westerners can travel to it, get into a private hospital and have procedures carried out faster and cheaper than using private medical services at home. But that obviously does not make India's health service better than the health services of countries like the UK or France or Germany, because huge parts of India's population cannot access those services as they are behind a pay wall.

The best in quality then yes it does. Just because it costs a lot doesn't mean it isn't great quality.

If everyone has access to a hospital that can only offer bandaids, then no, those health services suck.

This would be like saying a Ferrari is not a better car than a fiat, because not everyone can afford the Ferrari.

BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

We definitely don't lead the world in education any longer. But hey, we do lead the world in incarceration rates and military budgets.

In lower education no, but in higher education we're on top.

Er...kind of gone off topic unless we're raising genetically modified space marine babies.

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.

A lot of US women go to India for fertilization treatments. The cost here is $20k+. The cost there is often under $2k.

There are a number of other procedures that might make someone want to go abroad, especially plastic surgery. A friend of friend did this after he found out his insurance would not cover reconstructive surgery after a bad motorcycle crash.

Now, the hospitals people from the US visit are not the same as the ones the locals go to. Important to realize.

Yeah we went way off topic.

But I guess if you are going to talk about US Military Readiness, and eventually get involved in talking about other countries, looking at the countries as a whole does explain how capable those countries can be expected to be, and whether or not a certain level of readiness can be met. If a country is suffering from economic or political issues than readiness will probably be low. So even if the US were to fall back a bit on readiness, I am not sure how many others could be, since most face far more obstacles than the US does.

Then I guess, we could debate 'readiness for what' in particular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.

A lot of US women go to India for fertilization treatments. The cost here is $20k+. The cost there is often under $2k.

There are a number of other procedures that might make someone want to go abroad, especially plastic surgery. A friend of friend did this after he found out his insurance would not cover reconstructive surgery after a bad motorcycle crash.

Now, the hospitals people from the US visit are not the same as the ones the locals go to. Important to realize.

There may be some, but I doubt its really a lot. You have to get a host of shots before traveling to India in my company, although I am sure a random person could skip that. Can't drink the water, you are rolling the dice eating the food, cost of travel, hotels, etc. The same could be argued about going to Mexico for plastic surgery. Just because the procedure is cheaper doesn't mean its better.

I am willing to argue you get what you pay for too.

KTG17 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.

A lot of US women go to India for fertilization treatments. The cost here is $20k+. The cost there is often under $2k.

There are a number of other procedures that might make someone want to go abroad, especially plastic surgery. A friend of friend did this after he found out his insurance would not cover reconstructive surgery after a bad motorcycle crash.

Now, the hospitals people from the US visit are not the same as the ones the locals go to. Important to realize.

There may be some, but I doubt its really a lot. You have to get a host of shots before traveling to India in my company, although I am sure a random person could skip that. Can't drink the water, you are rolling the dice eating the food, cost of travel, hotels, etc. The same could be argued about going to Mexico for plastic surgery. Just because the procedure is cheaper doesn't mean its better.

I am willing to argue you get what you pay for too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism_in_India

It is currently worth $3billion and is growing. It is very dependent on the hospital. Your local hospital in Delhi is not going to be up to the standard of a specialised hospital in Channai.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It is currently worth $3billion and is growing. It is very dependent on the hospital. Your local hospital in Delhi is not going to be up to the standard of a specialised hospital in Channai.

Okay 3 billion is going to sound like a lot, but medical tourism brings in 30 billion in the US, and that's within a 155 billion medical industry. It wouldn't be that high if it wasn't good. Actually if it was bad, more would be traveling out of the country than remaining in it, and no one would come from other countries.

Don't Americans have the largest number of good doctors largely because they get paid more? So doctors from other countries are more likely to travel to the US because they'll get paid more, so you end up with a bigger pool of doctors to choose from and more going in to specialisations (which is mainly what medical tourists travelling to the US are going to be interested in, no one travels to the US to see a GP I'm guessing ).

The downside being chunks of the population can't afford it and per capita Americans spend more than any other country, like, by a lot. I think the medical spending per capita is double most other western countries.

The same thing happens in other fields, if you pay your bottom rung jobs less but pay your high end jobs more, you'll get more people coming in to fill those high end positions. There are obviously downsides to that system as well, but the one thing it does do is create a society with more people in those high paying fields.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Okay 3 billion is going to sound like a lot, but medical tourism brings in 30 billion in the US.

It'd be interesting to see what that comparison is in terms of contact hours with medical professionals. If medicine and time with a medical professional costs 10 times as much in the US than 3 billion in India is actually quite comparable to 30 billion in the US

KTG17 wrote:


If everyone has access to a hospital that can only offer bandaids, then no, those health services suck.

This would be like saying a Ferrari is not a better car than a fiat, because not everyone can afford the Ferrari.

No, this would be like saying that italian citizens have the best cars because they produce Ferrari, but one out of a million citizens actually owns a Ferrari.

Now the comparison is exaggerated of course but if the best medical treatments, devices and medicines are reserved to a small amount of population it means that this extraordinary healthcare is not the US healthcare, but it's the healthcare that rich citizens can have. If millions of americans can't receive adequate medical assistance, well the US healthcare is far from being the best one. The healthcare of a nation is not the sum of the most advanced and efficient techiques in the medical field that take place in that territory, but it's the average level of the medical treatments that its citizens are going to receive. The US healthcare is good overall, I think no one can deny it, but I don't think it's the best one and the average american doesn't seem particularly healthy to me, the number of obese citizens is signficant.

I can say the same about food production, the US can produce a huge amount of food overall but if the majority of it consists in McDonalds' products and similars it's a different story, that is not food. The availability of food is in general an index for a wealthy country but the abundance of junk food is the opposite, it means that a lot of people is going to have a bad health.

Okay but in our example, everyone does have access to the Ferrari to some degree. Some may get to test drive, some lease it, some buy it. If you are in need of an emergency, few hospitals can deny you. Now your ability to pay for extended service could impact your treatment, but I don't see anyway around that. SOMEONE has to pay for it. If it isn't the person getting the treatment, then its the tax payer. And that my friend, is a whole other argument.

Doctors don't want empty offices and empty hospitals either. They need to make their money too. If people didn't have access to health care, it wouldn't be a 155 billion dollar industry. People wouldn't be using it, or be going elsewhere.

If I needed some special medical treatment, the first place i would look is in the US. I would never consider going abroad unless it was for some experimental treatment not offered in the US.

As for food, you might be surprised. I just got back from Hong Kong and every McDonalds I came across on Hong Kong island and Kowloon was packed. So we aren't the only ones eating fast food. The problem isn't so much what we eat, but the lack of exercise. We rarely walk anymore, just drive.

I actually eat mostly Organic foods, and there are a growing number of us. We could talk all day about the US freely using way too many hormones, pesticides, GMOs, etc etc in their food, and I would agree with you on all of it. But it doesn't change the fact that we are exporting more than anyone by a long shot.

KTG17 wrote:
Okay but in our example, everyone does have access to the Ferrari to some degree. Some may get to test drive, some lease it, some buy it. If you are in need of an emergency, few hospitals can deny you. Now your ability to pay for extended service could impact your treatment, but I don't see anyway around that. SOMEONE has to pay for it. If it isn't the person getting the treatment, then its the tax payer. And that my friend, is a whole other argument.

Doctors don't want empty offices and empty hospitals either. They need to make their money too. If people didn't have access to health care, it wouldn't be a 155 billion dollar industry. People wouldn't be using it, or be going elsewhere.

If I needed some special medical treatment, the first place i would look is in the US. I would never consider going abroad unless it was for some experimental treatment not offered in the US.

If your point is that the bigger health market = the best health services, then I guess i know from which piss-poor ranking system you pulled those stats out ; your rectum.
It's as if you were somehow deluded that doctor's aren't in the top brackets of income even up here in Canada!

You realize that health tourism is an absolutely dumb metric to use when assessing a public healthcare system that is mostly restricted to its citizenry... right?

Well about Hong Kong you're right, this a special region of china, an autonomy territory that has been a british colony and now it's near western cultures, surely more than the rest of china. Taiwan is on the same boat too.

Fast foods and especially the ones with american brands are everywhere but I can assure you in Italy we have way more chinese restaurants than McDonalds, even if we are extremely more influenced by the USA rather than china.

The healhcare in every civil country is payed by the taxpayer, and then is free to everyone. Of course there would always be the private facilities which can be better but a good healthcare for every citizen should be mandatory in a wealthy nation, especially a democracy.

You would stay in the US beacuse you live there, and have the money to get adequate treatments. If you can afford the better ones, medical treatments in the US are certainly advanced, also a lot of rich foreigners travel to the US to pay for the best medical treatments, but if millions of citizens can't have access to them you have to consider what kind of medical treatments they can receive, not only your case.

Anyway these are Off topic considerations I guess, as the thread was about military readiness.

About that I think it's impossible to evaluate that as common citizens don't know anything about the real military assets that russia and china have. Maybe even the intelligence isn't completely aware of the rivals' strenght. But I think there would never be a war that involves those three countries, the US can only fear some islamic lonewolf in their country or the actions of a crazy dictatorship like the north korea's leader.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

If your point is that the bigger health market = the best health services, then I guess i know from which piss-poor ranking system you pulled those stats out ; your rectum.
It's as if you were somehow deluded that doctor's aren't in the top brackets of income even up here in Canada!

You realize that health tourism is an absolutely dumb metric to use when assessing a public healthcare system that is mostly restricted to its citizenry... right?

You are following the discussion right? I didn't bring up healthcare tourism, someone else did. I know these are adult topics but try and keep up.

Where are you getting that healthcare is mostly restricted to its citizenry?!?! Now that was pulled out of your rectum. Most people in the US do have access to fine healthcare. Its the poor/uninsured that hit obstacles, which hovers around 15%. Which if you can do the math, is nowhere near 51%.

I love hearing Canadians argue and criticize America. You guys are literally the most bitter people about the US than anyone I have ever met. But I guess I would be too, if I lived in the loft over a 24 hour party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
About that I think it's impossible to evaluate that as common citizens don't know anything about the real military assets that russia and china have. Maybe even the intelligence isn't completely aware of the rivals' strenght. But I think there would never be a war that involves those three countries, the US can only fear some islamic lonewolf in their country or the actions of a crazy dictatorship like the north korea's leader.

I would agree on Russia, but I expect something to flare up in the South or East China seas. The US is law bound to defend Taiwan in the event China attacks it, and China's first island defense strategy is mostly based on trying to keep the US out of the region should it decide to do so.

China is building a lot of ships and fighters, but I look at the strategy building those island bases and wonder what century they are in. Those islands will last 15 minutes in even a conventional sense. And of course, the Chinese have too many people to even attempt with any invasion of their mainland. War would essentially involve air and sea units and disruption of their imports and exports.

Having a big military isn't always a guarantee for success. Refer to Desert Storm. The US has far more experience in air and naval campaigns than China does. The advantage they would have is that they are already in the South and East China seas whereas the US has quite some distance to travel.

KTG17 wrote:


I love hearing Canadians argue and criticize America. You guys are literally the most bitter people about the US than anyone I have ever met. But I guess I would be too, if I lived in the loft over a 24 hour party.

Aww, cheer up, buddy. Your insecurity is showing. We love our big, dumb, cousins, we really do. Why do you think 90% of us live within a two hour drive? Because you're all so awesome and special just, well, great.

 feeder wrote:
Why do you think 90% of us live within a two hour drive? Because you're all so awesome and special just, well, great.

Lol, I honestly thought that everything north of 3 hours from the US border was declared a Death World where only the Valhallans could survive (and even then, they only do it underground)... I mean When Trump was talking a wall during the election, I was thinking he wanted to make it out of ice on the norther border, ya know... cuz he watched that "news" show about the white walkers

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING - FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THE SITE - ESPECIALLY RULE #1 - IS MANDATORY.

KTG17 wrote:
1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world.

You have extremely skilled doctors, no argument there. But they're not actually anymore skilled than in most other developed countries, we're all about on par with each other. There are differences at the very high end, with some surgeons and clinics becoming recognised world leaders in one narrow specialisation or another, but despite the common assumption of many Americans that these specialists are all in the US, they're actually spread pretty evenly across the developed world.

The issue in the US is accessing that healthcare. Many people are simply cut out of the system. That number has been much reduced under ACA, dropping from 18% to 11%, but it's still much bigger than you see elsewhere in the world. When you have a system where 11% of people have no health coverage, and therefore only get access to emergency care which will bankrupt them if they have anything worth taking (otherwise the hospital/government still ends up with the tab), then you have a system with a serious problem.

Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

Actually food is plentiful everywhere in the developed world. The rate of obesity is a product of culture and government regulation. The latter is actually part of the greater health system.

Vietnam, again, the military was asked to fight with one hand behind its back. If it were free to engage North Vietnam freely, the war would have been over in a short time. And when South Vietnam did fall to the North, the US Military wasn't even in the country.

You don' measure a win by what would you could have done if they'd been given different objectives and methods. You judge it by the ability to perform the task assigned with the methods available. In Vietnam the US military wasn't able to complete the objectives with the permitted toolset, as such they failed in their mission. This doesn't mean the individual troops on the ground or even the US command was bad, it's just a reality that sometimes militaries can't get very tough jobs done.

You are complete right that China and Russia are regional powers. The US is the only global military power.

Afghanistan and Iraq are more complicated. The US has pulled most of this troops out of both places, so you can't blame them from not winning battles it isn't fighting.

They have been steadily withdrawn after years of ineffective operations. Again, this isn't a criticism of the US military, lots of other countries have been involved, especially in Afghanistan, and they've also been ineffective. It turns out that it's actually very hard for a military to dismantle native groups who are able to spend years hiding out, undertaking low intensity bombing and ambush attacks.

Any war the US hasn't won a complete victory in comes because of the lack of support, clear mission, or meddling by politicians. In a straight up conventional fight, sorry, the US is going to be supreme.

But war isn't about having some supreme ability in hypothetical match ups. War is about achieving the political goals of the state. To the extent that a country can't do the latter, then it's military is of limited use, no matter what it's ability might be to demolish any and all attackers in Fortress America type fantasy.

Again, this isn't a criticism on the power of the US military. It is, if anything, a recognition on the limits of military power. It's actually very hard for sheer brute military power to do much of anything in terms of reshaping the world.

 sebster wrote:

You are complete right that China and Russia are regional powers. The US is the only global military power.

Both China and Russia have been extending their reach beyond their border sight quite a bit lately. Multi-regional might be a better term.
And by that account, Both France and the UK falls under the same category, albeit in lesser capacity.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Both China and Russia have been extending their reach beyond their border sight quite a bit lately. Multi-regional might be a better term.
And by that account, Both France and the UK falls under the same category, albeit in lesser capacity.

I'm actually not sure what the definitions for these things are. I mean, none of China, Russia, France or the UK can sustain any kind of operation outside their borders if the US opposes that operation. Does that limit their claims to force projection?

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Both China and Russia have been extending their reach beyond their border sight quite a bit lately. Multi-regional might be a better term.
And by that account, Both France and the UK falls under the same category, albeit in lesser capacity.

I'm actually not sure what the definitions for these things are. I mean, none of China, Russia, France or the UK can sustain any kind of operation outside their borders if the US opposes that operation. Does that limit their claims to force projection?

China and Russia can both sustain a helluva naval operation.