How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
First off.....this is completely without using nuclear weapons or any other WMD.

Hokay. Recently theres been a crap load of amounts of all these new weapons systems, mostly being advanced by the enemies of the United States ie. North Korea and Iran. After reading Red Storm Rising and doing some research it actually seems to me that if another huge war were to break out the United States could actually lose.

Now, the reason I think this is because all of our systems were made to counter a major force vs a major force war, like what was probable in the Cold War. These systems would still work for a major force, but in the end it would end up being a huge guerrilla war because it has been proven time and time again that the US really doesn't fare well in that kind of war. There are however new systems like the strykers that are meant to be more maneuverable than the old school and very bulky things like the M1's.

After doing some research it seems that if war broke out it would be a major air campaign conducted by the United States. The only problem is we don't have a very very formidible bomber force. All of our planes are top of the line, but I honestly believe that our strategic strike aircraft would be taken out fairly quickly. We only operate 94 B-52 bombers, which would be the main heavy bomber, then we only have 24 B-2 spirit bombers, along with 36 B-1 Lancers. This would be a fairly formidible strike force, but the only one of these that would have a major chance of getting through would be the B-2. Those are some of the only aircraft that could operate out of forward operating bases in other parts of the world. However with all the new advanced anti-air munitions coming out, the B-52's would be at a very very severe disadvantage, and the B-1's would also face a fairly high risk. Even with a good fighter escort these aircraft would be suceptible to SAM's and Anti-Aircraft Guns. This is where the US would be open to attack, but could be countered by a gracious amount of tomahawks and other cruise missiles being used to take out radar sites.

The other problem could come at sea. Before, the United States never had to worry about anything because the only thing that could really destroy a carrier battle group a nuclear weapon, which would escalate any war. That is something that people did not want to happen. Now however, there are weapons that can penetrate the defenses of even the Carrier Battle groups' CIWS. One of these is the Sunburn missile. It is seen as possibly the biggest threat to the group. Then with the Shkval and Iran's new torpedo the carriers may face new problems.

Then on the ground, the US would pretty much clean house at first when other countries tried to pit their tank forces against the M-1's. However this would eventually turn into a big guerrilla war. I think that is where the US would have big problems. Now I'm not saying that the US would get the crap kicked out of it in the next big war. I'm just saying that maybe, after a lot of cutbacks and the WoT the US wouldnt have the big advantage that a lot of people think it would. The citizens would also have to get used to war. That could be something that would limit the war. People are always complaining, we dont put enough trust in the generals. Anyway, what are some opinions. This is just some thoughts, kind of pointing out some weak spots.




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
No navy would get close enough to the usa to invade or anything like that. Worlds largest navy's #1. Usa navy, #2. usa reserve navy,#3. British navy,#4. Usa coast guard. Its well known the in any navy battle the usa is favored to come out on top by a lot. Also dont count on irans navy getting out of port let alone close enough to threaten a carrier. When our coast guard is bigger than most other navies, that should be embarrasing for other countries. And as for bombers the b-52s wouldnt have to enter the other countries airspace thats why we have stand off weapons like cruise missiles that can be launched from the plane. And most other countries dont have heavy bombers, expect russia but dont count on those all flying. Most of countries only have fighter/bombers. The war would never even reach usa soil, like most other wars we have fought. We keep a lot of planes in the desert jsut incase we have another world war. And the countries that boarder us would be no problem they would most likely be on our side. But is they werrent i dont predict mexico or canada putting up a fight.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Well I'm not talking about anyone invading the US mainland. Im with you on that one, it would basically be impossible. What I'm saying is when the US is fighting in a European or Asian field again. If theyre out there, and they have to conduct raids into fortified enemy territory.
Also standoff weapons work to a certain extent. ALCM's can be a formidible weapon, but they can be shot down like the V-1's in WWII and the allies arent the only ones with CIWS.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
It all depends on when and what the situation is of the countries the US fights and the situation is in the US. The next world war could happen after a complete collapse of the US for example.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I dont know if you can even have a world war now, i can only think of one country that can move enough troops, ships,planes etc. and lucky for me it happens to be mine. What navy would even have the balls to try and take on the usa navy, pretty stupid. No other navy can move around the globe i mean maybe britian, but they would need to use pretty much there whole navy to do it. Also to have a world war you have to other countries that can put up a fight and i mean an actuall fight not blowing # up with suicide bombers. There is no germany right now or a country that can threaten the world without nukes. I mean who would be the bad guys here. China and russia would not do much, china wouldnt be able to fund their army if a war started between the usa and china, china gets most of their income from selling us there stuff. China is also overrated a lot, wow 2 million man army with old weapons, not a very good idea just ask saddam. 2 million chinese guys would not put a real fight to lets sday the marines of the army. 2 million peasants or an army the is all volunter. Numbers mean something if you are fighting an army of your class, but china just gets old classed in pretty much all military tech.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Well i guess we wont see a world war then, becuase the chances of the usa falling apart is very unlikely. We dont have anything to lose, no huge pieces of property outside our boarders. The usa didnt fall apart dearing the depression , it was hard times but last time i checked we recovered and are now the worlds most powerful country. I do believe not in the near future but the future that we will go into another depression but we will come back just like we did last time. Also dont forgot what the global econ runs around the usa econ. so when the usa goes into depression history shows the rest of the world doesnt fair much better. If we go into a depression , no more place to sell all of that crap from china. Face it when you are the worlds biggest market you arent going to fall apart because of of alittle debt.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   


but in the end it would end up being a huge guerrilla war because it has been proven time and time again that the US really doesn't fare well in that kind of war.


the USA would use the marines, rangers and seal's combined with heavy air support to launch guerilla style raids on the guerillas bases and then when they were ready they would crush the guerillas in one large battle. the only reason the us hasnt done well against guerillas recently is because the guerillas have been able to hide amongst the local population, but in a world war that wouldnt be possible.

Also it depends on who allies themselves with the usa. in a major war the us would find a lot of allies some such as britain who would ally ourselves with the usa automatically and some would be found by the us exerting political and economic pressure on other countries.

Justin



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
First of all don't underestimate your enemy. The chinese are very tough fighters, along with all other asians the US has fought. China could raise some real hell. I am also from the US and know...well about the capabilities that have been released. China also has an army of over 2 million. Try around 200 million, along with a major industrial complex. WE also need THEM more than THEY need US.

Second, just because a navy doesnt have global capability doesnt mean its not formidable. What if China invades Taiwan, and tries for Japan, along with North Korea invading South Korea. That woudl cause some major problems for the US.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
First of all don't underestimate your enemy. The chinese are very tough fighters, along with all other asians the US has fought. China could raise some real hell. I am also from the US and know...well about the capabilities that have been released. China also has an army of over 2 million. Try around 200 million, along with a major industrial complex. WE also need THEM more than THEY need US.

Second, just because a navy doesnt have global capability doesnt mean its not formidable. What if China invades Taiwan, and tries for Japan, along with North Korea invading South Korea. That woudl cause some major problems for the US.


Dont overestimate yours, and no the 200 million is not an army its a human wave. The 2 million with guns is the army. Where do you get off thinking we need china more than they need us, with out us all those billions would stop flowing over there. the only countries where that may be true is in the oil producing ones, becuase we can go longer without # from walmart than without oil. China doesnt even have the navy for that. So you think china is going to take out the usa 7th fleet in japan, japans navy and tawians navy, i dont think so. if they could do that now there would be no reaason why they arent in tawain now.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
i think that if england went agaisnt the usa in this war the usa would take one hell of a beating because of us. We probably woudnt beat you unless we had some really good plan but we would really hurt you



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I think a lot would depend on the enemy and the theatre. The US military is undoubtledly the #1 but they are not invoncible and there are several countries that could repell a full out invasion by USA, notably China, Russia and India. The insergency issues in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the US is still, thirty years after Vietnam, pretty poor at dealing with asyemtrical threats.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by verymad
i think that if england went agaisnt the usa in this war the usa would take one hell of a beating because of us. We probably woudnt beat you unless we had some really good plan but we would really hurt you



How are you gonna do that ask france if you can use there aircraft carrier for a while, nice try you would need more have 30 plus plus planes to put up a fight. We have 12 large carriers and some other small ones, the rest of the world has like 4 and they arent even all full size if any. What would be your plan PRay a lot. its a joke we are a superpower for a reason. if britian could beat us in a fight or if china could then they would be the power but its us. are gonna send all 300 or so fighters at us, we have more fighters on 4 or 5 carriers than your whole af.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
I think a lot would depend on the enemy and the theatre. The US military is undoubtledly the #1 but they are not invoncible and there are several countries that could repell a full out invasion by USA, notably China, Russia and India. The insergency issues in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the US is still, thirty years after Vietnam, pretty poor at dealing with asyemtrical threats.


World wars arent asyemtrical threats , it would be tank on tank. And if they used nukes yes but other than that china and india no and chance of stopping and invasion. our navy would just sit off there coast and there wouldnt be much they could do. Russia is another story the thing that saves it is where would you launch the invasion from Alaska lol.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The chances of a major war breaking out in this day and age is slim to none. It's just not as profitable for any country to fight a major war; however, smaller wars, such as proxy wars are far more profitable for many businesses and economies throughout the World.

The World is run by the banks and corporations, and they will decide what each country will do. Even mad dictators are limited in their options i.e. Iran. Yes, there maybe a major incident in the coming years, maybe with North Korea or Iran launching WMDs, but it will be quickly dealt with like any other major incident throughout history and the World will move on.

How can any county maintain an offensive without being able to fund its military?

Just look at the Soviet Uninion, for instance - oh wait, they collapsed and the World moved on. How about the British Empire - again, went bankrupt and couldn't fund it's empire any longer, but the World moved on, even after two World wars.

I'm ranting - just reading all these dooms day threads elsewhere is starting to get to me


Any major conflict that involved a number of countries would involve WMDs - no country would allow major losses if they can be avoided i.e. USA, WWII, Japan. China and Russia will deal with Iran on their terms and will prevent Iran from doing anything drastic, trust me



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5

World wars arent asyemtrical threats , it would be tank on tank. And if they used nukes yes but other than that china and india no and chance of stopping and invasion. our navy would just sit off there coast and there wouldnt be much they could do. Russia is another story the thing that saves it is where would you launch the invasion from Alaska lol.
World wars include asyemterical threats. Look how much of the US military Iraq is tying down. Occupying territory as you invade ties down forces, moreso in the modern climate where outright brutality cannot be used to subdue the people in the way it was in previous times.

Re invading India or China, where would the US invade from? IMO both are vast enough and extensively armed enough to conduct a war of attrition against a US invasion. Both are many levels superior to Iraq in 1990. I'm not saying that the US military isn't #1 and doesn't have awesome kit, but I doubt their ability to invade certain large countries.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by planeman]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

Originally posted by shortmanx5

World wars arent asyemtrical threats , it would be tank on tank. And if they used nukes yes but other than that china and india no and chance of stopping and invasion. our navy would just sit off there coast and there wouldnt be much they could do. Russia is another story the thing that saves it is where would you launch the invasion from Alaska lol.
World wars include asyemterical threats. Look how much of the US military Iraq is tying down. Occupying territory as you invade ties down forces, moreso in the modern climate where outright brutality cannot be used to subdue the people in the way it was in previous times.

Re invading India or China, where would the US invade from? IMO both China and india are vast enough and extensively armed enough to conduct a war of attrition against a US invasion. Both are many levels superior to Iraq in 1990. I'm not saying that the US military isn't 31 and doesn't have awesome kit, but I doubt their ability to invade certain large countries.



iam not saying that we wouldnt lose tons of men, but come on china isnt the most of stable countries 80,000 riots last year. China couldnt afford a war of attriton, china isnt a country where everyone likes the gov, its a blutal government. Iraq was falling apart long before we made it to bagadad. Also for us to invade china it better had be a hell of a good reason thats the only way we would ever do it. because if it was a good reason like china attacked something of ours then most americans would be pissed and want there heads. Just ask japan what happens when you piss off the public, thats why we would win. that and the fact we have more than 300 modern planes , i dont count chinas planes for the 50's and 60's because i doubt they would even take off it would be sucide

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5iam not saying that we wouldnt lose tons of men, but come on china isnt the most of stable countries 80,000 riots last year. China couldnt afford a war of attriton, china isnt a country where everyone likes the gov, its a blutal government. Iraq was falling apart long before we made it to bagadad. Also for us to invade china it better had be a hell of a good reason thats the only way we would ever do it. because if it was a good reason like china attacked something of ours then most americans would be pissed and want there heads. Just ask japan what happens when you piss off the public, thats why we would win. that and the fact we have more than 300 modern planes , i dont count chinas planes for the 50's and 60's because i doubt they would even take off it would be sucide

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]
nothing like an invasion by another country to suddenly make a gov popular.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

nothing like an invasion by another country to suddenly make a gov popular.


Especially if that government has been "warning" the people of such an invasion for years...


How are you gonna do that ask france if you can use there aircraft carrier for a while, nice try you would need more have 30 plus plus planes to put up a fight


To say that the English would not do major damage to the US fleet is being a bit to hopeful I think , considering that this discussion is about a war away from the US mainland then it would be a war fought in around and over England. So yea while England might not have super carriers It does have the entire island landmass to use for one. You cant sink england!!! So you would have the royal navy with full RAF air support vs the US navy with carrier support. That would be a very bloody conflict.



How about a war between European Union and the U.S.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Maybe that would help if you had enough planes, your airforce has around 300, the usa would send a lot of carriers , we would have more planes even tho you wqould be fighting from your homeland. Your navy is to small to cause major damage to the usa fleet. better tech and better numbers the war wouldnt be on your side. And if it came to a land war, you have the second best tank ,first if you ask a brit, but again you have 300 challengers while we have thousands of m1's. So not much of a fight. Like i said before the usa has the largest navy, then the reserve navy then yours then our coast guard. those arent good numbers, we would wipe the floor with britain. And if it was the usa vs the eu at least it would be cool to watch it on fox or cnn. america vs. britian boring to easy, but at least the eu would make the news a bit more instersting. the thing is the eu is not one country so it wouldnt be that hard, i would bet france and britian would fight about who would lead the troops and by then it would be late anyway. It not like the eu is intergated where they would act as one at least not yet. so as of right now it would be sucide. Its funny that you need 25 countries to even break even with us on the econ side, but still arent even close to the usa military even with 25 countries...embarrassed i would be.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think the Royal Navy's nuclear subs would be a real threat to even the US fleet and vice versa.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join