Why can't the United States military engage in war without losing soldiers on the field.?
Since a child, i was always impressed and passioned by the advanced military technology and fire super power the United States has.
The F-117 night hawk, B52, B51, F15/16/17, Raptor F22, Anti missile system, UAV drones, spy satellites, naval power (aircraft carriers), hawax, bla bla bla ... all the huge military stuff with the computer super power. And all else, the information network of the NSA, FBI, CIA and the rest that do even have an official name.
Even with all the above, more than 1000 US soldiers are dead in Iraq, Bin Laden is in nature, Iran is playing with US diplomacy, North Korea has nuclear capabilities, etc.
Well, what the hell is the problem? U got the WTC, Embassy bombing and ur own aircraft carrier got bombed at bay. Sorry 2 say that but the US military power is useless. Waste of tax payers' money. Stay at home, save starving children and protect nature. Use ur money wisely.
Thank you all for the answers. Some people though, instead of answering the question, is blaming it. I ask it, becoz i dont know it.
So, be wise and answer, instead of saying that i am an idiot.
I am still grateful to the US military for helping to kick out all the shits off the world. My question was not aimed at blaming them. If u were too busy and skipped part of my question, let me resume:
"Combine ur technology better on battle field and minimize lost of soldiers life". I am no American, no soldier. If u got sensitive with the question and still sees me as idiot, then i wont bother again.
This is pure US mindset. U try to help them, they kick u out becoz ur not native.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
You can win ground by using technology, but you can't hold it. In order to hold ground you need infantry and armour. These types of units are susceptible to IEDs, mines, and ambushes. Even the most sophisticated armour is susceptible to IEDs. When the US troops went into Iraq many of the Humvees were not properly outfitted with armour. The reason: cost - it's too expensive to outfit 20,000 humvees with the latest armour. So while the US may have the ultimate Humvee with nearly impenetrable armour - it's simply too expensive to deploy that unit on a mass scale - even with the budget of the USA. That's why there were a lot more casualties than there should have been.
As well, we can blame the stupidity of Rumsfeld - poor planning and sacking the Iraqi military.
However the bottom line is that the military might of the USA is quite awesome. They are far from useless and they could quite easily crush Iran. Let's just say that if Iran really begins to pose a imminent threat to others, the USA is the wrong country to play chicken with.
- Philip LLv 41 decade ago
To occupy and hold territory an army must send in ground troops. Ground troops unlike bombers, warships and fighter jets meet the enemy "face to face" and do not have the luxury of killing from long range. Nor are they has heavily protected as a tank. So even a child with a well-placed shot can kill a soldier. To clear a house or village soldiers and Marines must go from corner to corner, house to house to flush out an enemy. This principle is as old as warfare. Even the the best trained armies can be bested by a poorly trained one in an urban environment (like Stalingrad). Still the US casualties are low compared to other wars.
In the late 1940's after Hiroshima and Nagasaki US strategists declared an end to conventional war. Then along came Korea where Nukes were of no use whatsoever and the Marines and Army grunts were sent in to dig out the enemy with rifle and bayonet.
- mnbvcxz52773Lv 71 decade ago
You show you have no concept of how war works.
No matter how much firepower you have, you cannot control the ground with air power or sea power. That takes boots on the ground. Not tanks on the ground, boots on the ground. This was demonstrated in the air campagne over Kosovo.
The fire power and ability of the US military has led to a 1% casualty rate for the US military, about 30,000 wounded or killed with about 3 million troop rotations to the hot spots.
The number you do not see is how many of the enemy is killed. That is the other are the pay off for that "wasted of tax payers' money" goes.
- conranger1Lv 71 decade ago
Is your little rant over troll??
Even with all the technology in the world you still have to put boots on the ground to hold and control an area.
And what does ". . . . and ur own aircraft carrier got bombed at bay. . .! mean?
What aircraft carrier was bombed in which bay??
Every dollar spent taking out a Muslim Fundamentalist is a dollar well spent.
I would guess that the way you attempted to formulate your question you are not a native English speaker?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BruceNLv 71 decade ago
Why are there still mining accidents and car crashes? Because an inherently dangerous activity cannot be made 100% safe.
I'll bet Iraq is 99% safe for our troops.
If anyone knows the numbers, take the number of casualties this year and divide by the number of troops.
Civilians have less safety. In our civil war, 95% of the casualties were military. In WWII it was less than 50%
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Every war since the dawn of time has been won by the infantry. Nelson and the Royal Navy did not beat Napoleon at Trafalgar; Wellington and the Army did it at Waterloo. For all of his tech superiority, Hitler was overwhelmed by Soviet infantry.
As for whether we should disarm because soldiers might be killed, how well do you speak Arabic and/or Mandarin? When the raving appeasers start yammering, you need to remember Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, or the American isolationists of 1940.
Like it or not, freedom has a price often paid in blood. We need to remember that when we exercise ours, especially when we vote for leaders. It is as bad to vote for a moral coward who will not defend democracy as it is to vote for a blundering idiot who invades the wrong country.
- CrimsonLv 51 decade ago
Because your an idiot and don't really know how wars are engaged. Plain and simple. If we were to use only Tomahawk missiles and our joint strike fighters and naval artillery the "war" would still be going on because you need the human presence to show strength, and to take out the randomness that are insurgent attacks. Jesus, man thats why we have all the branches we do.
- tugar357Lv 51 decade ago
Because you obviously haven't learned the basic problem with air power. You cannot hold ground with an airplane. There has to be ground troops there to hold the terrain.
The U.S. and Britain bombed Germany for years. Did it stop the war? Not until grounds troops got there. Almost the same for Japan. We fire-bombed whole cities and it didn't stop them. After Russia threatened to invade and we drop two nukes did they surrender.
- TexasTrev38Lv 51 decade ago
Watch the military channel from time to time. There's a show called "Future Weapons".
Compare the loss rate of today to WWII, there is a huge difference.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
If our Army and Marines, and Air Force were allowed to "cleanse" Iraq we would not suffer any casualties. Since we are there to prop up a feeble government, we are not allowed to just blow everything away, and therefore our troops are put in harms way.Source(s): US Army 1974-2000