U.S. War Solution? Is the U.S. military a king or a businessman?
Historically, there has indeed been a phenomenon of hiring ** people to solve the debt problem, which is not uncommon in the more than 200 years of history of the United States. During the War of Independence, many "loyalist" tycoons were deprived of their wealth and status, or even lost their lives, and their property was taken over by the "independents".
While the United States has not always excelled in foreign wars, their profitability in wars has been unmatched. Before becoming a hegemonic empire (before 1945), every war waged by the United States made huge profits, and not a single one was at a loss.
The history of warfare in this period is breathtaking, because the 19th and 20th centuries were the most frequent and intense periods of war in human history. However, in many large-scale wars, the victors did not receive much practical benefit.
For example, Japan paid a huge price in the Russo-Japanese War, including half a generation of young adults and astronomical debts, which remained unpaid until the outbreak of the war of aggression against China.
Japan, however, received very limited gains, gaining only politically recognized status as a "great power" and becoming the largest beneficiary of Britain in the Far East. However, Japan's coveted "special interests in Manchuria and even in China" were not realized, and the gains from paying a heavy price were weak.
The outcome of the Russo-Japanese War was unexpected, and Japan entered an anti-war period after the end of the war, and the "Taisho Democratic Movement" emerged. However, the war ultimately led Japan to its colonial destiny and deprived it of all the benefits of being the progenitor of East Asian modernization.
In contrast, the United States has not always performed well militarily in wars during the same period, but it has reaped enormous gains in each war. For example, the Mexican-American War not only established the boundaries of the United States, annexed the equivalent of four fertile lands of Ukraine, but also completely weakened Mexico's military power.
The Spanish-American War at the end of the 19th century deprived Spain, the first maritime colonial empire, of all its overseas colonies, which not only laid the foundation for the United States to project military power into East Asia, but also provided a geopolitical basis for its later participation in World War II.
*, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba and Wake Island, all of which cover a total area of more than 3 million square kilometers, are acquired by the United States. The United States has gained handsomely from these wars, thus forming the idea that "if you don't make a big profit, you will lose."
Even when they entered World War I, the United States felt that they had suffered too soon, but in fact they did not really suffer. On the contrary, they just don't get as much of a benefit as before.
The gain of the United States from participating in World War I was to pry open the door to the "Imperial System of Preferences", which is similar to the impact of China today forcing the United States to give up its sanctions powers.
Despite the extremely high percentage of the gains from the wars launched by the United States before it became a hegemonic empire, it must be admitted that the performance of the American team in these wars was not outstanding. During the initial Revolutionary War, the United States was able to win mainly because North America was extremely poor and the British Empire did not care about the colony.
With the size of the North American colonies at the time and the commitment to the war, they could never have won the British Empire. Although the American history books describe the Revolutionary War in a glorious way, just as the great men recorded in the ancient Chinese wild history will have auspicious and splendid scenes when they are born, in fact, most of the members of the army of the North American colonies during the Revolutionary War were members of the three religions and nine ranks, including exiled prisoners, local felons, and all kinds of ruffians and hooligans, and they were led by careerists.
Despite the careerists from"Loyalists"A lot of wealth was plundered there, but they were not willing to invest it in army building, resulting in many soldiers not even having shoes.
Therefore, they are not so much an army as bandits with titles. In the subsequent Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, the United States faced an opponent who was not strong, and its gold content was not high compared to the Russo-Japanese War.
The Russo-Japanese War was a war between two real powers, and Spain was cleaned up by the British"Poor ghost imperialism"。In the 19th century"Second American-British War", the United States tried to annex Canada, but was defeated by the Canadian army, and the capital Washington was burned down.
However, it was rebuilt that the White House as we know it today was created. In general, the U.S. team before World War I ranked lower among the great powers, probably only slightly stronger than Japan.
Despite the economic superiority of the United States, the inadequacy of its military began to emerge after the outbreak of World War II. In 1943, the United States began preparations to open a second battlefield on the Western Front.
The first confrontation was in Africa at the Battle of Kesselring Pass. In this battle, Rommel's Afrika Korps suffered a setback, the Battle of El Alamein failed, they were forced to retreat westward, and Rommel was about to be ordered to return home.
The performance of the U.S. team in World War II was a big surprise. Not only were they defeated in the battle of Rommel, but they also once again proved their incompetence because of their performance in the Battle of the Ardennes.
Despite their absolute superiority, they were almost penetrated by the Germans due to poor tactics, lack of training and lack of supplies. Such a failure has made people deeply question the strength of the American ** team.
On the Western Front in World War II, the German 352nd Infantry Division was a high-profile combat powerhouse. Despite the heavy losses suffered on the Eastern Front, the unit once again made its mark on the Western Front with the retraining of experienced mid- and high-ranking officers and newly recruited soldiers.
However, the overall strength of the German army was still slightly inferior to that of the British and American allies, and it almost capsized in the war. The Germans later commented: "If the Slavs were as brave as the Americans, then our Kremlin Red Star would be in danger."
Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why the Volunteer Army was able to smash the United ** on the Korean battlefield, and there are two main reasons for this. On the one hand, the Volunteer Army is adapted from the Northeast Army, which is the best equipped and most powerful.
On the other hand, the level of the US military, which is the pillar of the United **, is not high, and if it were not for the large-scale post-war disarmament, the Volunteer Army might have fought better. Why did the U.S. war victory rate drop so suddenly after World War II?
The reason is actually very simple, before World War II, the United States faced weaker opponents and could easily bully novices, but in the period of the hegemonic empire, the problem of the American ** team was exposed.
The only beautiful military victory of the United States after World War II was against a regime with a low level of construction, and in the face of Vietnam, Afghanistan and post-Saddam Hussein's Iraq, what advantage can it take advantage of?
The success of the United States is not accidental, it has a perfect combination of "time, place, and people". In terms of "human agency," the United States does not seem to be doing well.
Fortunately, the United States had the upper hand in time, and the British Empire was at war with Germany at the time, and had no time to care about the rise of the United States. In addition, the United States sits on the territory of North America and has no strong competitors.
What's more, the national liberation movement in the United States had not yet emerged at that time, and simple violent repression was enough to solve the domestic racial problem. However, the success of all this is not only due to the time of day, the United States has performed well in internal economic construction and military development and construction, and even surpassed Germany in the century.
Faced with the challenge of Britain, the strongest naval power, the German navy resisted valiantly; At the same time, the army fought fiercely against France and the Soviet Union. Although Germany had few overseas colonies, it had succeeded in building a world-class national power through education, domestic affairs, and financial regulation.
Despite the targeted attacks on British doorstep, Germany managed to provoke two world wars. Germany's development experience was very successful, and China and the Soviet Union learned from Germany's banking and financial system and education system in a comprehensive way, and the core parts of it were completely absorbed by China and the Soviet Union, and were studied by other late-developing countries according to their own national conditions.
The United States doesn't seem to have much to learn when it comes to national governance. Although the Republican Party promoted neoliberalism in the 80s and taught China its core political ideas, to this day, the United States has not left much of the popular acceptance of national governance.
In fact, countries that imitate the American system, such as Liberia in Africa, may not even be able to name names. Therefore, it can be said that the hegemonic position of the United States is somewhat cheap-picking.
Unlike previous generations of hegemonic powers, the United States was established by "fighting with each other and profiting from fishermen", and its internal political level and military development were not high.
Otherwise, China's conditions, based on the fact that the PLA's nuclear warheads were still in the single digits in 1983, how could it have changed dramatically in 40 years?
New copy: The conditions for the stability of the U.S.-China relationship no longer exist, but the U.S. has been slow to play the "war" card because it is not easy. If the card is in favor of the United States, then the situation may not deteriorate to the point where the card needs to be used.
If the United States really has absolute superiority, then to this day the US military should remain dominant. However, the PLA has developed slowly over the past 30 years or so, only updating its technology, and many important military technologies have not been applied for a long time.
It was not until 2019 that the PLA began to equip a large number of 99A tanks and Dongfeng-41 missiles, which seem to be advanced and novel, but in fact, the technical basis was determined very early, the 99A prototype completed the experiment in 2003, and then the project was stalled for a long time, and the test launch of the Dongfeng-41 missile was in the first few years of the 90s of the last century, and then the project was stalled, and it was not until 2016 that it resurfaced.
Win first and then seek war", which means that you must first prepare the conditions for winning the war before acting, otherwise it will become a gamble, and the victory or defeat will be unpredictable. However, the United States did not do this, but repeatedly failed in temple calculations and preparations, but everyone did not notice.
Looking back more than 20 years ago, the United States had an overwhelming advantage in politics, and even China and Russia were the best countries, how could the situation develop to this day, and the United States was needed to solve the problem through war?