It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:20 AM


The world has twice as many nuclear weapons as the US does.

CW.. no I didn't take my time.. just haven't visited weaponry/this thread in a long time.. anyways there was nothing in my post that required research. Most of it is common knowledge.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:30 AM

Originally posted by chinawhite

took your time

i was not aware that there was a " requirement " to post replies at your beck and call . other poeople have lives outside the internut , ATS is a hobby - NOT a duty . only in the formal debates is thier any time limit on posting schedules .

maybe you should reply properly yourself -- instead of sniping -- as you seem to think that prompt reply is so important

alternativly -- try getting out more

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:56 AM
I don't think it would be possible for US to win in war against the rest of the way. Especially if we're talking about conventional war.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:08 AM
My response to the original question in this thread is this....

The U.S. is faring just fine in the next world war, which is being fought even as I type these words. You see, this is a realty difficult for some to grasp, that war has evolved, and indeed is being fought today, worldwide. Ya, the U.S. is fighting a global war, many are indeed surprised at the lion's tenacity, yes?

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:01 PM
I agree that the US wouldnt win in a conventional war with the world. But this thread isnt another US vs the world. This consists of the US in a world war with allies.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:08 PM
prompt reply at your service,

Come on IA, laugher not your thing?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i was not aware that there was a " requirement " to post replies at your beck and call . other poeople have lives outside the internut , ATS is a hobby - NOT a duty . only in the formal debates is thier any time limit on posting schedules .

No requirement, its called courtesy.

If you actually know what im refering to before you come in with this bravado or start ranting about something you dont even know

He replied to the second post on the same day i wrote it and didn't reply to the other one which i thought he missed because he didn't answer both on the same day nor did he say he was. So i said he took his time to find the second post

maybe you should reply properly yourself -- instead of sniping -- as you seem to think that prompt reply is so important

*prompt reply*

I only did snipe because i had no time to write a reply since i have a life out of ATS. Not as though yo would know since you spend your time ranting in ATS

alternativly -- try getting out more

You live in melbounre?. Do you want to meet me and see if i get out a lot?
LoL, Your talking about someone you dont even know

I thought having to work, study and go out count as a life apart from ATS?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Daedalus3
CW.. no I didn't take my time.. just haven't visited weaponry/this thread in a long time.. anyways there was nothing in my post that required research. Most of it is common knowledge.

Im glad it is common knowledge

If you dont read the reply above then read this one. Because i made two seperate post and you only answered one of them i thought you missed the first one. But then you replied to it and said it took you time to realise there were two

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:27 AM
I believe that the U.S will fare good in the next world war ( if there ever will be one again). The bombs and missiles we have are spectacular. I have a friend that works at a local ammunition plant in production and he has informed me of certain missiles that are in production right now and i will tell you one thing that i would definetly not want to be around when they go off. If for some chance our government goes belly up and another country tries to take us over they wont get too far. Here in the heartland of america every person ( from where i am from) and i mean EVERY person owns a weapon so they will have a hard time taking us over. I can guarantee i wont go down without a fight !

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:58 AM
You've changed your signature too..

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Daedalus3
You've changed your signature too..

Did you get a chance to rad those articles?

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 12:26 AM
Sure did..
Not bad.. the general consensus is the same as it was around 2-3 years back.

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 07:43 PM
Hmm. as this probably is a silly question to ask in a sense. people arnt going to say "hey!, my country is #!, yours is better" or are they gonna accept getting down sized or tollerate bad use of history from other parties.

i aint no buff on history or military powers. i admit it.
I'm a british music student and listening to some strange muse tracks.
(not that thats important)

all i can say is that if america did get into a world war for 'X' reason they wouldnt be on their own. neither would they be fighting a country thats on their own either. cos that would be a war. not a world war.

on their own against an allied force they would most likely fall. but we all know they would most likely be allied to british, canadian etc forces and so on (probably inaccurate) blah blah blah blah blah

WHO THE HELL WANTS A #ING WORLD WAR!. dont forget when that little word 'world' gets stuck in with 'war' then all you guys having a pissing contest over how big each others guns are (that includes you guys from britain too, we've all been at it) will have to pull yourselves from the sofas and go and fight an enemy hundreds of miles away or on your doorstep and see friends die in front of you and possibly die yourself. the fact is war sucks. world wars suck dog cock.

nobody wants war. (that is sane) and no wmd's?????

very funny. as if that is going to happen. lets say if hitler for example (not saying this applies to anything) had a few nifty nuclear bombs in his shed next to the spade and the box of coat hangers during (the end at least) ww2, i'm very very very very very sure he would have used them. although thoughts of nuclear power has changed sinse the invention and the cold war, who can say what the mind of a desperate leader would project.

please i know this is probably the most flower power thread here and most of it may be innacurate but all i mean by it all is that war is not a way forward. sure all of our countries have hard times getting on. but we may as well.

oh by the way britain would win cos i have ninja skills lol

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:43 PM
Going back a few pages about teh Korean War. He's some good gun camera footage of the US Sabres shooting the crap out of CHinese Mig-15's.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by rogue1]

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:14 PM
Im from New Hampshire, USA and Even im pissed off right now with the Amount of my fellow americans going on about "MAN AMERICAN WOULD WIPE ANYONE WHO FACES IT OUT"

reality check "NO WE #IN WOULDNT" PARDON MY FRENCH its this idiot thats get the rest of us stereotyped as self obsessed rednecks.

first things first, the US military really isnt all that great, for one, the size of it means that training to the Standards of other Nations eg The United Kingdom is impossible, I mean look, Europe has been kicking the # out of each other whilst North American was floating off of the then Flat World hehe.

Right so, the US starts invading countries, lets take Britain for example, The Brits have alot more Political Influence than us, I mean thats fairly obvious with the amount of Hatred aimed at us, who would you side with, an Imperialistic country that you don't even like, or the country that would provide a foothold to the world, and it is the world, from the British Isles, onto france and you can go ANYWHERE.

So we invade the Brit, and most of the world will side with them, so there goes your entire "WE would just send OUR entire NAVAL force to you" because infact you now have to send most of it to make sure the Commonwealth, the chinese, the Asians, the Iranians don't stab you in the back from behind, you also have to designate a large portion of your air forces to the game, further limiting your movements.

you are now faced with transporting 300,000 Plus troops and Equipment across the vast expanse of the Atlantic, whilst the RAF, along with the United States of Europe's fellow Airforces Shoot us down over the sky. after all the closer we get the further we have to go to re arm etc ?? whos gonna win that one, the ones that fly 200 miles to rearm or the ones that have to fly 2000 ??

Ok so you scrap the plan for Britain and Invade the South of france, we moved whats remaining of our Naval forces and Airforce to the South of france and land successfully, we then face, the Forces of Several nations, which have the Greatest Tanks in the world at the present moment, the challenger 2, the Leapard (forgive my spelling) along with the others, no matter what you say both the experience of the European States and the fact that their armour would kick the # out of the M1A variations. ok so we land behind a force of 50,000 US marines, as we have had to leave some behind to make sure the part of the world that has Sided with Britain doesn't wipe us out while we are out of the house, we have had to brign in Drafts, and the overall standards of the military drops, so now we have a group of trigger happy, marines running through france, then they meet the French Foreign Legion, the British Armed forces, alogn with the other nations which can support them selves together in terms of Supplies, so their supplies are already lieing around, not to mention the fact that their experience is un-paralelled on earth, so we take heavy casulties and are eventually pushed oyt by the combined force of the Royal Navy, thje french navy, The German Navy, the Spanish, The Italians, The russians, and the other member states. So we scrap that idea, having just been demolished by the combined Might of the United States of Europe.

By this time, the Other Neautral countries mainly China and the Nations they have put political pressure on whilst we have been out playing in other peoples yards, they have got some ideas and now rapidly moving towards our great shores with their combined fleets, so they are now facing the same problem we had just faced over the pond in europe, except, as we have just been well and truely hammered, we are now relying on the National guard, whilst the 2nd most powerfull nation on earth steams towards our shores like a freight train, we have no choice but to enlist every man capable, or face total annexation by the chinese, now they don't send 2,000,000 men over at once because thats impossible but the USA now faces the same problems the Nazis did in world war II, Industrial capacity, yes now the USA are the modern Day nazis and the Chinese are the Modern Day USA, un rival'd in production capabilities, for every ship we take out they replace it with 2, the Chinese have passed a law meaning everyone capable of working IS DOING JUST THAT, thats over 300,000,000 people all producing weapons to crush the United states with, for every ship full of men we sink, they send another, now we have a problem, after years of war with the crazy europeans, or finances have all but run out, we are struggling to produce ammunition, and the Chinese navy slowly defeat our remaining carriers, we call ALL United states forces from around the world and they immediatly begin to steam towards home but they have to pass China to get to us, so they remain trapped and are captured as they fire all there ammunition and run out of supplies. The remaining forces defending the USA's shores run short of supplies and have no choice but to give up, The European naval task force has all but decimated every city on the eastern coast, whilst the chinese have done the same on the Western. Millions of americans Starve with the lack of food, whilst the Europeans remain totally self sufficent after Getting along for once, they support each other with food shipments and are soon in aggreement to become on Nation. The chinese lose millions of people to forced labour to sustain the war but it makes no difference to them, and the USA begins rapid arming of all its Nuke Silos, face with a Mutual ashured destruction both the Europeans and the chinese back away and face their nukes at the United States. and si begins the New cold war.

So lets face it its all fantasy, EVERYONE RELIES ON EVERYONE ELSE there will never be another world war, and for all my fellow americans shouting we are the greatest, WE ARE NOT are military is formed of mostly ill trained young men from the poorest area of our great nation, our technology is NOT the greatest in all aspect, and our sheer lack of experience is the major problem.

NO I AM NO A MICHEAL MOORE FAN, I fully support the war with Iraq, im just tired of my Fellow americans always acting like me Pwnz0rz we don't lets face it.

good night Vienna


posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:02 PM
Thank you yuanshao101, you've made an awesome point that the average American needs to realize. They need to realize that America isn't invincible and that another war is simply OUT of the question RIGHT now.

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by yuanshao101
Industrial capacity, yes now the USA are the modern Day nazis and the Chinese are the Modern Day USA, un rival'd in production capabilities, for every ship we take out they replace it with 2, the Chinese have passed a law meaning everyone capable of working IS DOING JUST THAT, thats over 300,000,000 people all producing weapons to crush the United states with,

Hmm you make some bizarre points. Where are these 300 million people going to work, factories don't just magically appear, it would take decades to prodice the light and heavy industry you're talking about to employ 300 000 000 people. Not to mention CHina is just as dependant on outside resources as America is, even more so. They buy Oil from around the world transported by ship, uranium from Australia transported by ship, not to mention an abundance of essential strategic minerals, which all hvae to come by vulnerable ship. Your theory of CHinese military production is completely bogus.

This is just one fallacy of your argument. BTW, you're assuming what, in teh next world war the US would be fighting everyone, simply not true and completely ridiculous.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by rogue1]

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:21 AM

Also D3 i have another post you haven't replied to above the one which i am replying to now

Originally posted by Daedalus3
1) The only thing partially common between kargil and 62' is the proximity of the terrain, even though the terrain is very different.

Ill pretty sure you know that the whole area gets covered by a layer of snow during winter?. You telling me how high the kargil war was fought yet you dont take into account that askin chin is the area which starts the decent down. It took chinese troops less than a week to go down the karakoram pass.

You do realise where the actual fighting took place dont you?. Chinese forces where already in askin chin and where moving out of the actual area. We even built a big highway right though askin chin without india even knowing about it. In three days the chinese infantry already reached Pangong Lake and Ladakh

You're thinking that chinese forces would need to go across askin chin and all that open space. But if you read some history you would have known that the chinese forces attacked from the Askin chin border

There were major considerations about crossing the border here and so bombing runs were not as optimal as they could have been.

Why would there be need to cross the border during kargil?. I do not see the need to since you could just as easily have went parallel to the border instead of straight into it.

The indian airforce were unable to hit a fixed target already painted by infantry and which positions were already known, how are they going to be effective againest moving infantry on mountain passes. And yes they were mountain passes, karakoram pass was the first then saser pass. I hope you dont think the war was fought in a desolate landscape

The weaponry required to assure 100% dislodging/destruction of such fortifications would probably be only available with countries like the US

Even with LGBs the indian airforce only managed one hit on a large supply base, and that supply base had a large open top. They didn't need to dislodge the troops inside by themselves but shut off the bunker openings which they failed to do

5)The role of the IAF in Kargil was pivotal in dislodging the militants from their perch.

yet my article tells otherwise, The article actually quotes a indian offier which took part in the conflict and was his professional opinion on the indian airforce. Whats the amount of time have to do with whether the indian airforce could hit a target or not?. Even if they were deployed that month eariler, they still would being missing the same targets they started off with

The IAF had the main use of supplying the enemy and not much more. The indian infantry was the one which actually did all that work while he artillery was the one doing some accurate hits

So you're concluding that the amount of firepower deployable against PLA on a per soldier basis would have been much lesser in 62' than the korean war?

Are we including artillery as well?. Because the amount of firepower the UN had dropped on PLA positions were alot more than what the indian forces could have managed (per soldier). Also come up with your korean war figures and i will come up with mine

100000-500000 is a wild range. In 1950 Tibet was not even a part of China. It was annexed only in 1959.


Are you sure you indian history books are correct?. Check out your sources again then you can answer this part properly

But anyway on the figures,

By 1954, 222,000 members of the PLA were stationed in Tibet. In April 1956, the Chinese inaugurated the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet (PCART) in Lhasa, headed by the Dalai Lama and ostensibly convened to modernize the country and bring about democratic reforms.


This was for 1954 and does not take into account the PLA troops that would have been moved there during the 1959 rebellion.

Here is also a source about the PLAAF airforce in tibet BEFORE 1962

Despite this and other successes, the US aid now served no serious purpose any more. By 1962, the Chinese have built a number of roads and airstrips, establishing strong lines of communications, which enabled them to deploy a large number of Army and PLAAF units in Tibet.

And the types of aircraft deployed

Initially, the US support had minimal effects on the war that raged through Tibet, and in which the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was meanwhile deploying at least two regiments of fighter-bombers to hit towns under guerrilla control. Exactly what types were deployed by the PLAAF in Tibet remains unknown, but various Tibetan sources indicate the use of Ilushin Il-10 fighter-bombers, Ilushin Il-28 and Tupolev Tu-4 bombers, as well as MiG-fighters (MiG-15s and MiG-17s). From few available reports, it is known that in October 1958, the Khampa guerrillas have shot down at least one Chinese aircraft on a bombing mission, and that this has had a crew of five, as well as a “turret with powerful machine guns” and internal bomb-carrying capability. This would indicate the use of some other type but the already mentioned. Certainly, the Il-28 was the preferred solution, then it had the range as well as good load capacity; but, it has never had a crew of five.

If you already know about the site ACIG then you would know its farily accurate about figures though its a little bit opinionative

Tibet may be a massive area but the whole region is not populated and there are only a few population centres so PLA troops would ahe been concentrated in a few areas. I know in Lhasa there was a concentration of about 30,000~50,000 combatants.

In tibet land reforms had already started and people were located in collectives. The building progress in tibet was well under way in the 1950s

A long drawn out battle would've seen the PLA at major logistical debacle.

Like i mentioned before, the PLA would have been supplied form its own industries and could have waited out any war with india. India was still being supplied by western countries and had a non-existant armoury.(non-existant as in insunificant).

Am i right in saying that during 1965 india only had a month left of supplies before the war actually finished and the only way india did win the war was because pakistan had a even smaller supply than india themselves. I think your asumtion should be the other way around. Chinese indsutry and logistics supply was indias senior by a long shot. Chinese forces were experienced in mountainous warfare and partipated in one of the largest wars ever againest the US which was at its prime

What wars had india been in?. Lost 1962, stalemate againest pakistani in 1965. How, according to you is india meant to wage a war if it has no experience espeically againest a enemy which has had experience and showed them where it counted in the actual war we are talking about

My pick is that it was a combination of the two.

Tibet proper is a plateau while the border with india is harsh terrain. There is no combination, The whole area is rocky, at high altitude and sometimes very high up with only one little path going down. The post you replied to was regarding supply lines in tibet and not where the actual fighting would have taken place.

AP or the NEFA is at high altitude and where the fighting took place was junglish with its river valleys and mountain slops

Its hard for everybody to accept, except you.

Really?. Names please

Or you might like to disagree with the 1.3billion people with my same opinion. Or neville maxwell which was hired by the indian government to which i share the same opinion with. Or the indian government which puts blame on everything except itself

All this would be inferior in capability to the same on the Indian side. That again is the basis for my reasoning behind why the PLA stopped its advance when it did.

Well its a project you can conduct then.

The FACT of the matter is.

* Chinese forces did not get halted by indian forces at any significant point
* When they called their advance off no indian forces could have opposed their advance if they choose to go on
* They controlled three times more area than they claimed
* And the fact that the PLA already built up a extensive supply line in tibet aready and had a active supply line working in tibet supplying roughly 100,000~500,000 troops already in tibet

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Thats a shade lighter than your stance a few pages ago.
Anyways its improvement nonetheless

I always had the same stance. Ineffective or useless

That means that nothing short of nukes would stopped the venerable chinese infantry?

That was the plan
. Im not to sure of your knowledge of the korean war so ill fill you in. MacArthur was planning to put 14 nukes on the chinese border filled with colbalt so the chinese infantry couldn't go over the mountain.

I contest your claims of the offensive capability of the IAF in 62. Please back them up. What do you mean?

The amount of munitions the indian planes could ahve dropped per day

Its all about the terrain in this case. In the open moving troops are vulnearble as hell.

That would only sovle a little bit of the actual battle. They were mainly fought though mountain pass like karakoram or saser. Nothing like what your thinking askin chin was about. And in tight situation like mountain passes, aircraft find it hard as heel to straf planes coming at you

Basically before the war both aksai chin and arunchal were in India's possession as per international maps and understanding.

The agreement with britain and tibet was illegal as my post above stated. Even though the british signed the treaty they did not ratify their agreement with tibet that would reconized there independence and nulls out the McMahon line.

And could you provide those international maps or understanding?

And if these lands were in indian control why was the need for forward deployment that nehru implmented?. Or how about that massive freeway passing though askin chin that india only knew about after it was actually built?. Good administering

What you're trying to say is that the chinese took some of that land(Aksai Chin) and then wanted to trade it in for some other land(much bigger) which anyways belonged to India in the first place? huh?

Your lack of understanding about this issue is quite laughble. Not to offend but the land rights issues with askin chin and AP should be common knowledge to anyone which sudies the border conflict

Here is a brieft summary

India claims Askin chin and AP
China claims Askin chin and AP or NEFA

China was willing to give up its claim to NEFA if india gave up its claim for Askin chin. Chinese forces went out of the NEFA as a gesture of good will to india so india would go back to the negotiating table

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by rogue1
Going back a few pages about teh Korean War. He's some good gun camera footage of the US Sabres shooting the crap out of CHinese Mig-15's.

Is this the same person that was trying to prove his maturity just a few post ago?

Ignorant ape

PS: Why is it a chinese Mig-15?. Russian pilots flew migs so did korean

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:58 AM
I was, not making a point of the USA against the world, I was just mearly pointing out the fact that alot of my fellow americans seem to always rekon that when the age old argument of Britain vs USA, we would just steam roll over the United Kingdom, in my opinion that is what would happen if we tried . . . .

As to the IC argument, the factories are already there, for everything except Military uses, then again how do we know the chinese are not rolling out 100 tanks a day ???,

so the war wouldnt't happen today or tomorrow, but say ina decade or two ?? you honestly think that we will still be anything even close to the "everyone needs us" argument ?? # THAT # ! wake up the world is moving fast, The chinese already produce almost everything used in our everyday lives, it takes us, what ? 3, 4 years to Build a High story building, where as it takes the Chinese about 9 months, for every guy that dies on the project they inject another 5, and they will work their little chinman asses off to reach deadlines because if they don't meet deadlines they DO NOT GET PAID, they are sent back to the countryside and they eventually live a very sad a dull life, their right to live in the cities is taken away from them so they WILL build anything and with in a time span that cannot even be imagined by the Western World.

Look at Dubai, they have built it to a point where it has passed any city in the USA, maybe not in terms of Finance, but if they can Build teens of Sky scrapers and indeed entire islands in that time, and the chinese could out do that if they chose too, im sure they could build the neccessery industries to start producing supplies, ammunitions, and weapons on such a scale that the USA would be killing the Chinese with their own weapons hehe.

But this is after all fantasty, it will never happen because the world is self sufficient and it would simply implode upon its self ifwe ever had another world War, Nations import their goods from such a large number of nations of each side of the Political scale that if we had a war on such a scale, we would lose half out imports and so would they as parts of our trade partners sided with each Allience.

just my two cents, before start shouting that this is "TOTAL CRAP" how the HELL WOULD U KNOW ??? the truth is NO ONE knows how the bext world war would lay out, we can only imagine, and anything that is Imagined cannot be totally wrong as we havnt the slightest idea what would happen.


top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in