The new rifle also incorporated a charger loading system,  another innovation borrowed from the Mauser rifle'  and is notably different from the fixed "bridge" that later became the standard, being a charger clip stripper clip guide on the face of the bolt head.
The article then went on to list a number of Russian weapons systems which were clearly superior to their US counterparts when those even existed.
The US definitely has the quantitative advantage, but in terms of quality and training, Russia is way ahead. So what is going on here? Why do otherwise very well informed people have such totally contradictory views?
To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Still, I am confident that what follows is factually correct and logically analyzed.
To sum up the current state of affairs I would say that the fact that the US armed forces are in a grave state of decay is not as amazing by itself as is the fact that this almost impossible to hide fact is almost universally ignored. The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies.
After WWII the US was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the US enjoyed a situation close to quasi total monopoly. That, again, hugely benefited the US armed forces but it soon became clear that in Korea and Vietnam that advantage, while real, did not necessarily result in any US victory.
Following Vietnam, US politicians basically limited their aggression to much smaller countries who had no chance at all to meaningfully resist, never mind prevail.
If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam see here or here we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countries. These wars will go down in history as case studies of what happens when politicians believe their own propaganda.
While Dubya declared victory as soon as the invasion was completed, it soon became clear to everybody that this war was a disaster from which the US has proved completely unable to extricate itself even the Soviets connected the dots and withdrew from Afghanistan faster than the Americans!
So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: Actually, no, it is not. The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
This means that there is an emerging consensus amongst the countries which the US tries to threaten and bully into submission that for all the threats and propaganda the US is not nearly as formidable enemy as some would have you believe.
Why nobody seems to be aware of it The paradoxical thing is that while this is clearly well understood in the countries which the US is currently trying to threaten and bully into submission, this is also completely ignored and overlooked inside the United States itself.
Aug 19, · Dear Thumbs, There are quite a few topics in your essay, so we thought we’d just try to touch on a few, hopefully in the order you presented them. Fake History. How The Money Power Controls Our Future By Controlling Our Past. By Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty. The ‘Fake History’ and ‘Fake News’ pejoratives (like ‘Conspiracy Theory’ before them) have only recently entered common parlance, but the falsification of history and news reporting is as old as history itself. Jewish Propaganda Books in Britain The Jewish push towards wars was strong throughout this period; I've chosen as the starting date, when Norman Angell's The Great Illusion was published, to , when the Left Book Club was closed. I've included some material on war aims, and shown why these could not be honest.
This is both true and false. Potential nuclear target countries for the US can be subdivided into three categories: Countries who, if nuked themselves, could wipe the US off the face of the earth completely Russia or, at least, inflict immense damage upon the US China.
Those countries which the US could nuke without fearing retaliation in kind, but which still could inflict huge conventional and asymmetric damage on the US and its allies Iran, DPRK.
Those countries which the US could nuke with relative impunity but which the US could also crush with conventional forces making the use of nukes pointless Venezuela, Cuba. And, of course, in all these cases the first use of nukes by the US would result in a fantastic political backlash with completely unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.
Others would, no doubt, disagree The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless I say almost, because in the real world the US cannot simply rely on the mental sanity and goodwill of other nations; so, in reality, the US nuclear arsenal is truly a vital component of US national security.
Which leaves the Navy and the Army. The USN still controls the high seas and strategic choke points, but this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially in the context of local wars.
Besides, the USN is still stubbornly carrier-centric, which just goes to show that strategic vision comes a distant second behind bureaucratic and institutional inertia. As for the US Army, it has long become a kind of support force for Special Operations and Marines, something which makes sense in tiny wars Panama, maybe Venezuela but which is completely inadequate for medium to large wars.
Surely that counts for something? Actually, no, it does not. Ask yourself a simple question: Do you really, sincerely, believe that this has anything to do with national security?
If you do, please email me, I got a few bridges to sell to you at great prices! Seriously, just the fact that the US has about 5 times more "intelligence" agencies than the rest of the planet is a clear symptom of the the truly astronomical level of corruption of the US "national security state"] In weapons system after weapons system, we see cases in which the overriding number one priority is to spend as much money as possible as opposed to delivering a weapon system that soldiers could actually fight with.
When these systems are engaged, they are typically engaged against adversaries which are two to three generations behind the USA, and that makes them look formidable. Not only that, but in each case the US has a huge numerical advantage hence the choice of small country to attack.
But I assure you that for real military specialists the case for the superiority of US weapons systems in a joke.America’s decision to abandon the global system it helped build, and then preserve for more than seven decades, marks a turning point, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it.
Japanese law does not define those convicted in the post trials as criminals, despite the fact that Japan's governments have accepted the judgments made in the trials, and in the Treaty of San Francisco (). This is because the treaty does not mention the legal validity of the tribunal.
The President, which was towed to Mare Island in March to be scrapped. In May, it was towed out again, this time to Texas, in a swap for its sister ship, the President Lincoln, which was deemed too un-seaworthy to make the voyage to Texas.
Aug 19, · Dear Thumbs, There are quite a few topics in your essay, so we thought we’d just try to touch on a few, hopefully in the order you presented them. Essay WORLD WAR ONE. Weapons and Technology of World War 1, page 1 Weapons and Technology of World War One Taylour Hurd CHC 2D November 2 Page 2 Imagine a war so great and powerful that new weapons and ideas were created in order to fight it.
World War 1 was a dramatic change in world history because new weapons were used, the death rate was very high, and there was loss of territory in many nations. World War 1 had the just as many casualties as armed force.