Does America have the finest military?

Very interesting and well written article from Salon talking about the modern US military and how it stacks up to historically great armed forces:

http://www.salon.com/news/us_military/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/06/american_military_finest

Before reading the article I'd put it this way.

Nobody in history has ever had the ability to project power across the world the way the US military has from about 1985-1995.

Since then the size of our military has been cut by over a third so today we cannot do quite as much as we could then.

But if the question is who really USED that power to the max? I'd think Messers Kahn or Alexander have got everybody licked. Now to read.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Before reading the article I'd put it this way.

Nobody in history has ever had the ability to project power across the world the way the US military has from about 1985-1995.

Since then the size of our military has been cut by over a third so today we cannot do quite as much as we could then.

But if the question is who really USED that power to the max? I'd think Messers Kahn or Alexander have got everybody licked. Now to read.

Credit to Marble, that's exactly what the article said (and I'll take your word you didn't read it beforehand )

marbleheadmaui wrote:Before reading the article I'd put it this way.

Nobody in history has ever had the ability to project power across the world the way the US military has from about 1985-1995.

Since then the size of our military has been cut by over a third so today we cannot do quite as much as we could then.

But if the question is who really USED that power to the max? I'd think Messers Kahn or Alexander have got everybody licked. Now to read.

Didn't the Roman empire dominate the known world during their reign ?? from Persia to Eastern Europe, North Africa to Scotland's borders.

They built roads to link up the empire and for a long time was able to transport legions across the different terrains to defend the trade routs.

Ah, great minds! LOL.

A GREAT article I think. Especially this

Indeed, the seductive and self-congratulatory narrative of our troops as selfless liberators and the finest freedom fighters around actually helps blind us to our violent methods in far-off lands, even as it distances us from the human costs of our imperial policies.

One thing people refuse to accept (and this gets back to an earlier conversation you and I had) is that a well trained military is trained to do two things only. Break things and kill people. Literally ANY other job they are assigned conflicts with their essential training.

Now it has been true in the past with Epaminondas and Sparta and Sherman and the South and the USA/Allies and Japan/Germany that killing many people and breaking many things has led to what most would call social goods.

But whatever goods came from them did not come because the soldiers created the good, but instead killed the bad and broke their things so that a power vaccum was created that better men filled. It has rarely been true, very rarely, that the "better men" came from the violence of the military. MaCarthur in Japan, Washington and I am already running out of names.

Great read. Thanks!

Ali wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Before reading the article I'd put it this way.

Nobody in history has ever had the ability to project power across the world the way the US military has from about 1985-1995.

Since then the size of our military has been cut by over a third so today we cannot do quite as much as we could then.

But if the question is who really USED that power to the max? I'd think Messers Kahn or Alexander have got everybody licked. Now to read.

Didn't the Roman empire dominate the known world during their reign ?? from Persia to Eastern Europe, North Africa to Scotland's borders.

They built roads to link up the empire and for a long time was able to transport legions across the different terrains to defend the trade routs.

Yup. But a lott less area than the Mongols and nobody p4p EVER did more than Alexander's Macedonians.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Before reading the article I'd put it this way.

Nobody in history has ever had the ability to project power across the world the way the US military has from about 1985-1995.

Since then the size of our military has been cut by over a third so today we cannot do quite as much as we could then.

But if the question is who really USED that power to the max? I'd think Messers Kahn or Alexander have got everybody licked. Now to read.

Didn't the Roman empire dominate the known world during their reign ?? from Persia to Eastern Europe, North Africa to Scotland's borders.

They built roads to link up the empire and for a long time was able to transport legions across the different terrains to defend the trade routs.

Yup. But a lott less area than the Mongols and nobody p4p EVER did more than Alexander's Macedonians.

What's impressive about Alexander's journey is he was able to do it with about 30,000 odd men.

Just imagine how rugged and tough those Macadonian veteran's would've been when they reach India.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Ah, great minds! LOL.

A GREAT article I think. Especially this

Indeed, the seductive and self-congratulatory narrative of our troops as selfless liberators and the finest freedom fighters around actually helps blind us to our violent methods in far-off lands, even as it distances us from the human costs of our imperial policies.

One thing people refuse to accept (and this gets back to an earlier conversation you and I had) is that a well trained military is trained to do two things only. Break things and kill people. Literally ANY other job they are assigned conflicts with their essential training.

Now it has been true in the past with Epaminondas and Sparta and Sherman and the South and the USA/Allies and Japan/Germany that killing many people and breaking many things has led to what most would call social goods.

But whatever goods came from them did not come because the soldiers created the good, but instead killed the bad and broke their things so that a power vaccum was created that better men filled. It has rarely been true, very rarely, that the "better men" came from the violence of the military. MaCarthur in Japan, Washington and I am already running out of names.

Great read. Thanks!

It's also true that the way a modern democratic state like the US uses it's military is inherently different from the way an emperor like Khan or Alexander (or even Napoleon) did. American forces certainly aren't "liberators" in they way they might like to be thought of; but neither are they conquoring invaders in the way some would paint them, or in the way other imperial forces have been.

The modern conflict is less about controlling populations through force than it is about controlling access to populations as a resource (i.e. a market). Global capitalism means you don't have to control a country in the same way as the Romans or Mongols did in order to extract your "tribute".

Ali wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Before reading the article I'd put it this way.

Nobody in history has ever had the ability to project power across the world the way the US military has from about 1985-1995.

Since then the size of our military has been cut by over a third so today we cannot do quite as much as we could then.

But if the question is who really USED that power to the max? I'd think Messers Kahn or Alexander have got everybody licked. Now to read.

Didn't the Roman empire dominate the known world during their reign ?? from Persia to Eastern Europe, North Africa to Scotland's borders.

They built roads to link up the empire and for a long time was able to transport legions across the different terrains to defend the trade routs.

Yup. But a lott less area than the Mongols and nobody p4p EVER did more than Alexander's Macedonians.

What's impressive about Alexander's journey is he was able to do it with about 30,000 odd men.

Just imagine how rugged and tough those Macadonian veteran's would've been when they reach India.

To be fair, that was one already battle hardened group by the time Alexander inherited them. Phillip II had fought almost every summer for two decades before his death. It was PHillip who had instituted the longer Spear and other technical advanacements. Alexander inherited a highly effective war machine. And he used it and led it as well as any battle captain in human history. And yes it is almost impossible to describe just how tough those veterans must have been.

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Ah, great minds! LOL.

A GREAT article I think. Especially this

Indeed, the seductive and self-congratulatory narrative of our troops as selfless liberators and the finest freedom fighters around actually helps blind us to our violent methods in far-off lands, even as it distances us from the human costs of our imperial policies.

One thing people refuse to accept (and this gets back to an earlier conversation you and I had) is that a well trained military is trained to do two things only. Break things and kill people. Literally ANY other job they are assigned conflicts with their essential training.

Now it has been true in the past with Epaminondas and Sparta and Sherman and the South and the USA/Allies and Japan/Germany that killing many people and breaking many things has led to what most would call social goods.

But whatever goods came from them did not come because the soldiers created the good, but instead killed the bad and broke their things so that a power vaccum was created that better men filled. It has rarely been true, very rarely, that the "better men" came from the violence of the military. MaCarthur in Japan, Washington and I am already running out of names.

Great read. Thanks!

It's also true that the way a modern democratic state like the US uses it's military is inherently different from the way an emperor like Khan or Alexander (or even Napoleon) did. American forces certainly aren't "liberators" in they way they might like to be thought of; but neither are they conquoring invaders in the way some would paint them, or in the way other imperial forces have been.

The modern conflict is less about controlling populations through force than it is about controlling access to populations as a resource (i.e. a market). Global capitalism means you don't have to control a country in the same way as the Romans or Mongols did in order to extract your "tribute".

Yes and no. First off "tribute" isn't "tribute" when it is voluntary. I don't think the US has ever forced anyone to buy a Dell Computer or a Boeing jet or made them go see a John Wayne film. American troops as liberators depends on the situation. We were liberators as a side note in Japan and Germany, we were liberators at the core in Korea and Iraq. The difference you might ask? In Japan and German we effectively ruled politically for a decade. In Korea and iraq we gave up political control very, very quickly.

Lastly, the modern conflict (at least today) has little to do with population control and everything to do with taking out irresponsible actors controlling national resources.

The Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate ruled from India to Spain via Morocco.

freakzilla wrote:The Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate ruled-

LOL, pikers!

Lol, I didn't know the pic was that big. I deleted it.

freakzilla wrote:Lol, I didn't know the pic was that big. I deleted it.

Useful pic though.

marbleheadmaui wrote:
Yes and no. First off "tribute" isn't "tribute" when it is voluntary. I don't think the US has ever forced anyone to buy a Dell Computer or a Boeing jet or made them go see a John Wayne film. American troops as liberators depends on the situation. We were liberators as a side note in Japan and Germany, we were liberators at the core in Korea and Iraq. The difference you might ask? In Japan and German we effectively ruled politically for a decade. In Korea and iraq we gave up political control very, very quickly.

Lastly, the modern conflict (at least today) has little to do with population control and everything to do with taking out irresponsible actors controlling national resources.

For tribute, yeah, that's why I included the quotation marks - it's more about establishing a Western, capitalist, materialist mindset as opposed to other cultural or political value systems which were in place previously (e.g. communism, shinto).

In WW2 in Europe to some extent Americans were liberators (along with the rest of the Allies) certainly in places like Holland for example. But I've always felt the US takes too much credit for the defeat of the Nazis. 20 million Russians died fighting the Germans and destroyed 80% of their military capacity on the Eastern front BEFORE D-day. The USSR won that part of the war, for all intents and purposes. Of course American supplies were essential, but it was the Russian people who did the lion's share of the fighting and the dieing.

So, liberation from the Nazis? Not really. Liberation from the Soviets after the fact? Sure, not too many in the old Eastern Bloc likely to argue that one with you.

Hard to see how America "liberated" Japan, especially if you happen to live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Korea was given political freedom early, but on very American terms. In the same way the US essentially dictated the types of economics and politics that was acceptable in their "sphere of influence" in South and Central America, South Korea was in reality on a very short leash.

Iraq is not yet a functioning state, which is a judgement on American involvement in and of itself. Clearly Sadam was an evil person, but he was no less evil in the 80s when the CIA was arming and training his people.

Wow, reading that over it really sounds like America-bashing. Not my intent at all, I'm just making the argument.

Me likey USA!

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:
Yes and no. First off "tribute" isn't "tribute" when it is voluntary. I don't think the US has ever forced anyone to buy a Dell Computer or a Boeing jet or made them go see a John Wayne film. American troops as liberators depends on the situation. We were liberators as a side note in Japan and Germany, we were liberators at the core in Korea and Iraq. The difference you might ask? In Japan and German we effectively ruled politically for a decade. In Korea and iraq we gave up political control very, very quickly.

Lastly, the modern conflict (at least today) has little to do with population control and everything to do with taking out irresponsible actors controlling national resources.

For tribute, yeah, that's why I included the quotation marks - it's more about establishing a Western, capitalist, materialist mindset as opposed to other cultural or political value systems which were in place previously (e.g. communism, shinto).

In WW2 in Europe to some extent Americans were liberators (along with the rest of the Allies) certainly in places like Holland for example. But I've always felt the US takes too much credit for the defeat of the Nazis. 20 million Russians died fighting the Germans and destroyed 80% of their military capacity on the Eastern front BEFORE D-day. The USSR won that part of the war, for all intents and purposes. Of course American supplies were essential, but it was the Russian people who did the lion's share of the fighting and the dieing.

So, liberation from the Nazis? Not really. Liberation from the Soviets after the fact? Sure, not too many in the old Eastern Bloc likely to argue that one with you.

Hard to see how America "liberated" Japan, especially if you happen to live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Korea was given political freedom early, but on very American terms. In the same way the US essentially dictated the types of economics and politics that was acceptable in their "sphere of influence" in South and Central America, South Korea was in reality on a very short leash.

Iraq is not yet a functioning state, which is a judgement on American involvement in and of itself. Clearly Sadam was an evil person, but he was no less evil in the 80s when the CIA was arming and training his people.

Wow, reading that over it really sounds like America-bashing. Not my intent at all, I'm just making the argument.

Me likey USA!

Here's the problem with crediting the Russians in a vaccum. The ONLY reason they survived the initial Nazi onslaught and were able to hang on until they go their crap together was because we sent them MILLIONS of tons of war material on the Murmansk convoys. Literally MILLIONS of tons!Those began in September 1941 and continued throughout the war. Without those voncoys? There woluld have been a lot fewer Russians who had anything to fight with and lot more of them dying. The Soviet Union would likely have collapsed.

You DID read what I wrote about Germany and Japan NOT really being liberated except as a side note? As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman likely saved 250,000 American lives and at least a million Japanese lives there. Go look at the casualty figures on Iwo and Okinawa and do a little extrapolation sometime to look at an invasion of Japan. Scare the crap out of ya!

That's simply untrue about Korea. After the Inchon invasion, the city of Seoul really hadn't even ben cleared before Syngman Rhee was back running things.

OF COURSE Saddam was less evil in the 1980's. He was fighting Iran. The enemy of my enemy

And you'd BETTER like the USA or we're gonna send Bryan Adams back!

marbleheadmaui wrote:[Here's the problem with crediting the Russians in a vaccum. The ONLY reason they survived the initial Nazi onslaught and were able to hang on until they go their crap together was because we sent them MILLIONS of tons of war material on the Murmansk convoys. Literally MILLIONS of tons!Those began in September 1941 and continued throughout the war. Without those voncoys? There woluld have been a lot fewer Russians who had anything to fight with and lot more of them dying. The Soviet Union would likely have collapsed.

You DID read what I wrote about Germany and Japan NOT really being liberated except as a side note? As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman likely saved 250,000 American lives and at least a million Japanese lives there. Go look at the casualty figures on Iwo and Okinawa and do a little extrapolation sometime to look at an invasion of Japan. Scare the crap out of ya!

That's simply untrue about Korea. After the Inchon invasion, the city of Seoul really hadn't even ben cleared before Syngman Rhee was back running things.

OF COURSE Saddam was less evil in the 1980's. He was fighting Iran. The enemy of my enemy

And you'd BETTER like the USA or we're gonna send Bryan Adams back!

Yes, of course there's no question the USSR was in big trouble if it weren't for the US supplies - I said that. However the whole "second front" controversy led to the Cold War for a reason - the Russians (along with the Brits, Canadians and others) were begging the US to join the war earlier. There would have been no need for 20 million Russians to die if America had simply done the right thing and fought the Nazis when they began their agression in Europe. The calcuation was made to wait and allow Europe to devestated to such a point that America could be sure of economic dominance for the next 50 years (which it was).

I full understand why Truman dropped the bomb and, yes, most likely it did save lives in the end. However that still doesn't mean the US was doing Japan a favor.

And Syngman Rhee was as much of a puppet as any of the Eastern Bloc dictators the Soviets put in place, don't kid yourself about that one. My old professor Denis Stairs used to rant and rave about that guy - he was an American educated conservative put in place by the US. He jailed political opponets and when he was about to lose the election in 1960 his oppenent conviently died a few days before election day.

All that said, please please have mercy with the whole Bryan Adams thing

wow what a awsome article written elquently by a military man no less.first my hats off to marble and tobe for expressing themselves with great knowledge on the topic of this nature..i have basic knowledge from the greeks romans gengis kahn and other armies of substance.thats it.elementary my dear watson..the only thing ill disagree on with tobe is that if the usa got involved at the begining of hitlers rgression that things would of changed.first the usa was not ready for war in a major effort or way..planes thousands of them had to be built as well as tanks etc etc to equip a huge army properly..second the arms forces at that time in manpower was at a peace level.
churchill made several trips here and elsewhere to attempt to talk rosevelt into helping..third there was plenty of oposition here not to get involved with what was first viewd as europes war..forth .the us needed time to get ready..yes we gave ships to england to aide sea superiority but the machinery for war need time.we started on that object then pearl harbor came about..immediatley the young men of the usa lined up to serve and fight..a draft was implimented big time to suplly the abundance of manpower needed to make that differnce..
hitlers blunders saved great britian from being conquered just before we got involved..i forget the name.dunkirt maybe.he spread himself a bit thin with several fronts which helped.
how soon before pearl harbor could the usa have been ready..maybe we were ready machinery wise many months before but manpower wise..nope.pearl harbor made it our war and no longer europes.oposition was stilled and a major voluntary of young men swelled the ranks of the military..
untill that happened it would of been very difficult to recriut hundreds of thousands of guys to fight what was viewd as not our war but europes..
outside of that my hats off to both of you..impressive indeed.

dmar5143 wrote:wow what a awsome article written elquently by a military man no less.first my hats off to marble and tobe for expressing themselves with great knowledge on the topic of this nature..i have basic knowledge from the greeks romans gengis kahn and other armies of substance.thats it.elementary my dear watson..the only thing ill disagree on with tobe is that if the usa got involved at the begining of hitlers rgression that things would of changed.first the usa was not ready for war in a major effort or way..planes thousands of them had to be built as well as tanks etc etc to equip a huge army properly..second the arms forces at that time in manpower was at a peace level.
churchill made several trips here and elsewhere to attempt to talk rosevelt into helping..third there was plenty of oposition here not to get involved with what was first viewd as europes war..forth .the us needed time to get ready..yes we gave ships to england to aide sea superiority but the machinery for war need time.we started on that object then pearl harbor came about..immediatley the young men of the usa lined up to serve and fight..a draft was implimented big time to suplly the abundance of manpower needed to make that differnce..
hitlers blunders saved great britian from being conquered just before we got involved..i forget the name.dunkirt maybe.he spread himself a bit thin with several fronts which helped.
how soon before pearl harbor could the usa have been ready..maybe we were ready machinery wise many months before but manpower wise..nope.pearl harbor made it our war and no longer europes.oposition was stilled and a major voluntary of young men swelled the ranks of the military..
untill that happened it would of been very difficult to recriut hundreds of thousands of guys to fight what was viewd as not our war but europes..
outside of that my hats off to both of you..impressive indeed.

Yeah you're right Dmar, the US wasn't ready for war in 1939. Then again, neither was Britain or Canada or Austrailia or anyone else (other than the Germans). But they fought anyway. The political climate in the US had to managed as there was still a major isolationist movement that didn't want America to keep getting pulled into what were seen as European conflicts. One can appreciate that, but when you consider who the Nazis were and what they advocated, it's hard to see how Americans took so long to get into the fight. In fact, if the Japanese had never attacked the US might have dragged its heels even longer and Britain may well have been invaded too.

The reality is the Allies wouldn't have won the war without the US industrial capacity behind them. But to me that capacity was always there - the political will to use it and to commit to the Allies with troops simply wasn't.

Now, big picture with 20/20 hindsight that looks like the right call by the USA - they get in on the winning side, suffer relatively few casualties and gain the upper hand in the Cold War before it ever started. They go on to enjoy a half century of prosperity and then have thier only global rival (the USSR) collapse, leaving them as the sole Superpower.

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:[Here's the problem with crediting the Russians in a vaccum. The ONLY reason they survived the initial Nazi onslaught and were able to hang on until they go their crap together was because we sent them MILLIONS of tons of war material on the Murmansk convoys. Literally MILLIONS of tons!Those began in September 1941 and continued throughout the war. Without those voncoys? There woluld have been a lot fewer Russians who had anything to fight with and lot more of them dying. The Soviet Union would likely have collapsed.

You DID read what I wrote about Germany and Japan NOT really being liberated except as a side note? As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman likely saved 250,000 American lives and at least a million Japanese lives there. Go look at the casualty figures on Iwo and Okinawa and do a little extrapolation sometime to look at an invasion of Japan. Scare the crap out of ya!

That's simply untrue about Korea. After the Inchon invasion, the city of Seoul really hadn't even ben cleared before Syngman Rhee was back running things.

OF COURSE Saddam was less evil in the 1980's. He was fighting Iran. The enemy of my enemy

And you'd BETTER like the USA or we're gonna send Bryan Adams back!

Yes, of course there's no question the USSR was in big trouble if it weren't for the US supplies - I said that. However the whole "second front" controversy led to the Cold War for a reason - the Russians (along with the Brits, Canadians and others) were begging the US to join the war earlier. There would have been no need for 20 million Russians to die if America had simply done the right thing and fought the Nazis when they began their agression in Europe. The calcuation was made to wait and allow Europe to devestated to such a point that America could be sure of economic dominance for the next 50 years (which it was).

I full understand why Truman dropped the bomb and, yes, most likely it did save lives in the end. However that still doesn't mean the US was doing Japan a favor.

And Syngman Rhee was as much of a puppet as any of the Eastern Bloc dictators the Soviets put in place, don't kid yourself about that one. My old professor Denis Stairs used to rant and rave about that guy - he was an American educated conservative put in place by the US. He jailed political opponets and when he was about to lose the election in 1960 his oppenent conviently died a few days before election day.

All that said, please please have mercy with the whole Bryan Adams thing

1. Sadly the US had ZERO, and I mean ZERO capacity to fight a war in Europe before 1942. In 1938-39 our Army, Marines and Air Corp were a fraction of the size they would be by say 1943. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure we had fewer than 100,000 men under arms in say 1938-39. There was no CALCULATION made to delay things, it took us that long to get our act together. We directed resources towards Europe from the git go. The Policy was Germany First. As evidence look at what was being used in the Pacific in 1942. Brewster Buffalos and freaking Douglas Devastators for God's sake. The Garand rifle hadn't even been introduced. Look at how we performed at Kasserine Pass in early 1943. We had the wrong guys leading poorly trained troops and got our butts handed to us.

You have to remember it takes YEARS to train and equip an army.

2. In hindsight the US ABSOLUTELY did Japan a favor, if inadvertantly. I mean fer crissake AFTER the second bomb was dropped there was an attempt at a military coup to stop the surrender.

3. Syngmann Ree was the George Washington of his people. A great man, a liberal spirit...awe I can't pull it off He DOES get points for resigning and leaving rather than trying to stay in power though.

no one lost just a few casulaties in that war tobe.we suffered perhaps the least for thoses that partcipated fully in the war.500 000 young men is not a few casulaties..fortunetly we were across the ocean.had the usa been located in europe when it got involved the casulaties including civilans would of been in the millions..
how many casulaties did sweeden have or switzerland ...

dmar5143 wrote:no one lost just a few casulaties in that war tobe.we suffered perhaps the least for thoses that partcipated fully in the war.500 000 young men is not a few casulaties..fortunetly we were across the ocean.had the usa been located in europe when it got involved the casulaties including civilans would of been in the millions..
how many casulaties did sweeden have or switzerland ...

You're absolutely right, the key word in what I wrote was "relatively". 500,000 is a hell of a lot of young men, but compared to the Russians' 20 million it is "relatively" few. And the lack of physical damage to US infrastructure - roads, railways, ports, factories, cities, etc. can't be overstated in the advantage it gave the US.

marbleheadmaui wrote:[1. Sadly the US had ZERO, and I mean ZERO capacity to fight a war in Europe before 1942. In 1938-39 our Army, Marines and Air Corp were a fraction of the size they would be by say 1943. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure we had fewer than 100,000 men under arms in say 1938-39. There was no CALCULATION made to delay things, it took us that long to get our act together. We directed resources towards Europe from the git go. The Policy was Germany First. As evidence look at what was being used in the Pacific in 1942. Brewster Buffalos and freaking Douglas Devastators for God's sake. The Garand rifle hadn't even been introduced. Look at how we performed at Kasserine Pass in early 1943. We had the wrong guys leading poorly trained troops and got our butts handed to us.

You have to remember it takes YEARS to train and equip an army.

2. In hindsight the US ABSOLUTELY did Japan a favor, if inadvertantly. I mean fer crissake AFTER the second bomb was dropped there was an attempt at a military coup to stop the surrender.

3. Syngmann Ree was the George Washington of his people. A great man, a liberal spirit...awe I can't pull it off He DOES get points for resigning and leaving rather than trying to stay in power though.

LOL at the Rhee comments.

And yeah, the Japanese military had some of the most extremist ideas in the modern world so you could argue that dropping the bomb saved them from themselves. Of course the other school of though is that the US was looking for someone to make an example of and scare the Russians by showing off the A-Bomb in real combat, and Japan with it's wooden infrastucture fit the bill nicely. Not sure I really buy that though.

As for America's ability to wage war pre-1942 you have a point. But, like I said to Dmar, were the Brits or Canadians or other Allies in any better position? They suffered losses and learned hard lessons (see Dunkirk and the Dieppe landing for examples) before they really got their act together either. And the Russians got smacked down hard in the early phase too. But at least they were there to slow the German advance and do their part with what they had. They just didn't have the luxury of waiting till they were ready to start the fight.