Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
once again numbers, we can afford to lose more , how many nuke subs does britain have 4.




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Maybe that would help if you had enough planes, your air force has around 300, the USA would send a lot of carriers , we would have more planes even tho you would be fighting from your homeland.


OK listen first off its not "my" airforce.... I'm an American!!!

Second perhaps we have very different views on what heavy losses are. You seem to think we could loose 3 or 4 carriers and no big deal!!!

I do think the "my" navy (US NAVY) would win eventually but would definitely take heavy losses.

The reason I brought up the EU is because that would be a much bigger challenge. The U.S. would take many many losses. You want to compare numbers but you have to remember this is a war IN EUROPE.. not the US homeland. That alone would make it much harder for the U.S. for many reasons.

First maintaining logistics in a war against the EU would be a nightmare. The US uses many European bases to maintain logistics in the middle east. However if thats not there then what?

After all that you have the fact it would be a ground war fought IN EUROPE. This is a place with many forests not just deserts and mountains.


if it was the USA vs the EU at least it would be cool to watch it on fox or CNN


Statements like that tells me you are probably a kid with with no knowledge of war. When you say things like that it only serves to fuel Anti-Americanism around the world. While it may be fun to speculate about what might happen in a hypothetical war , watching that war would be anything but "cool"

If you doubt Europeans technical ability and will to fight perhaps you need to go learn something about WW2.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman

Maybe that would help if you had enough planes, your air force has around 300, the USA would send a lot of carriers , we would have more planes even tho you would be fighting from your homeland.


OK listen first off its not "my" airforce.... I'm an American!!!

Second perhaps we have very different views on what heavy losses are. You seem to think we could loose 3 or 4 carriers and no big deal!!!

I do think the "my" navy (US NAVY) would win eventually but would definitely take heavy losses.

The reason I brought up the EU is because that would be a much bigger challenge. The U.S. would take many many losses. You want to compare numbers but you have to remember this is a war IN EUROPE.. not the US homeland. That alone would make it much harder for the U.S. for many reasons.

First maintaining logistics in a war against the EU would be a nightmare. The US uses many European bases to maintain logistics in the middle east. However if thats not there then what?

After all that you have the fact it would be a ground war fought IN EUROPE. This is a place with many forests not just deserts and mountains.


if it was the USA vs the EU at least it would be cool to watch it on fox or CNN


Statements like that tells me you are probably a kid with with no knowledge of war. When you say things like that it only serves to fuel Anti-Americanism around the world. While it may be fun to speculate about what might happen in a hypothetical war , watching that war would be anything but "cool"

If you doubt Europeans technical ability and will to fight perhaps you need to go learn something about WW2.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Heckman]
i

I thought you wouild notice the sarasm , about the cnn thing. Guess i overestimated you. not as quick as i thought. Tell me how we would lose 3 to 4 carriers. i would love to know that. maybe one or 2 at the most againsit the eu, and none against britain. Carriers are hard to sink its not quite as easy as a lot of people on this site think. It would be the usa carriers and other ships fighting no carriers just planes from their bases and some of there other ships. Also dont forget britain or the eu would have horrible intel. theyy probely wouldnt be aware the ships were there. Dont forget who supplies all of their sat intel and pics. thats the reason they are trying to create there own sats so they can be indepent of us. So they would be flying blind pretty much and i dont expect the russians to help them out. So if they could find us. the reason people are anti-american is because that the popular thing to say these days. its easy to be anti-american now but when a problem comes up militarily , and the world comes a callin again i hope we say no. I know we wont , but i can dream. Example dafur europe knows it cant go in alone becuase if something goes wrong they dont have the resources to get supplies and or men there quick enough. thats why they didnt want to go help the serbs, they couldnt do it without us. Yea anyone can send a few thousand troops, but no one else can bomb the hell out of them from the shores of the usa. So if they cant even handle the serbs without us, how can they fight the country they cant fight without.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
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.


I agree that the UK fleet could put a good dent into the US Navy. But like its ever gonna happen so I dont think its even necessary to get into a pissing contest with an ally. America appreciates the Brits(I do anyhow), too much history of fighting together(though there was a bit of a rivalry between Monty and Patton) for the past cenury. Though I should ask, do you think this could ever happen?

So how bout that next world war again?
[edit on 5/4/2006 by ludaChris]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The exocet missile. That is the first way the EU would knock out US carriers, ask Argentina. First of all the US bombers that could operate from CONUS would get the crap kicked out of them by SAM's. Look at Germany trying to invade Britain. They did bomb them, and I dont think Britain's going to let that fly.

Where do you get off saying that China is going to have major losses but well lose. If they tried to overtake the Taiwan Straits, there would be a major response, but it would actually take awhile for such a response to happen. The only reason China hasnt done this is that they probably dont want a big war, plus they dont have a sufficient amphibious force. It would be a lot harder for them. That being said however they are in the process of a major modernization program. They have a huge amount of good fighters such as the Su-27 family and a few indiginous classes. I also think they could throw a major blow.

Also, dont flame me for being anti american or anything, because I am an american myself and someday hope to join the military. I am just being realistic, and thats the point of this thread is to evaluate how the US would do in a major conflict on a global scale.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
The exocet missile. That is the first way the EU would knock out US carriers, ask Argentina. First of all the US bombers that could operate from CONUS would get the crap kicked out of them by SAM's. Look at Germany trying to invade Britain. They did bomb them, and I dont think Britain's going to let that fly.

Where do you get off saying that China is going to have major losses but well lose. If they tried to overtake the Taiwan Straits, there would be a major response, but it would actually take awhile for such a response to happen. The only reason China hasnt done this is that they probably dont want a big war, plus they dont have a sufficient amphibious force. It would be a lot harder for them. That being said however they are in the process of a major modernization program. They have a huge amount of good fighters such as the Su-27 family and a few indiginous classes. I also think they could throw a major blow.

Also, dont flame me for being anti american or anything, because I am an american myself and someday hope to join the military. I am just being realistic, and thats the point of this thread is to evaluate how the US would do in a major conflict on a global scale.


Saddam was bragging about all those exocet missiles in the first and second Gulf Wars, look how much good it did. But I just want to know, so in this scenario now, were talking an EU vs US war?

Youre dead on on the China issue with invading Taiwan. But they have been building up their amphibous capacity and it wont be long before they do have the capability.
Except with the Su-27 thing. Chine does not yet have airborne radar, though they are working on it I'm sure. That is one US advantage in the air that not many countries have. But I dont personally believe the Chinese airforce could stack up to the US or UK airfoces in skill and technology. I'm not saying the Su-27 isnt a good aircraft, but I do not believe the PLAAF could beat the US or UK AF in air to air combat, or win any air battle for that matter at this point. Their newest fighter, the J-10, not even out yet I dont believe, slightly(and thats a bit iffy, I dont know much about it at this point) more advanced than our latest block F-16's, a plane developed in the 60s and 70's. But time will tell I guess.

I dont think your anti american. But I personally believe the US and its NATO and other allies(Japan, SK, Austrailia, Israel ect.) would win another World War should it happen.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
US and NATO allies would come out on top, I think that we would sustain massive massive losses. The US has a lot of fighters that could take it on, especially with the F-22's and typhoons coming out. The only thing the Chinese have on the allies is astonishingly massive numbers. Like stuff that the allies wouldnt think of, and they will ALL fight to the death.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
US and NATO allies would come out on top, I think that we would sustain massive massive losses. The US has a lot of fighters that could take it on, especially with the F-22's and typhoons coming out. The only thing the Chinese have on the allies is astonishingly massive numbers. Like stuff that the allies wouldnt think of, and they will ALL fight to the death.


China is not japan they are not told that to surender is horrible, you dont know what you are talkin aobut. Alot a soliders wont mean anyhting when the nato planes fly over and drop a bomb on them. Number only mean anything if they are well trained. and chinas army is not well trained. Also if there were a world war and china got invaded the goverment would fall.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

I thought you would notice the sarcasm , about the CNN thing. Guess i overestimated you. not as quick as i thought.


If you were being sarcastic then i retract my statement about being a child. It just seemed a bit childish.




Tell me how we would lose 3 to 4 carriers. i would love to know that. maybe one or 2 at the most against the EU, and none against Britain.



Well in a war against Britain while the RAF numbers might be fewer than US navy planes and long range USAF bombers , the British would have many other advantages. You can bet that in such a conflict Britain would go after the carriers instead of setting back trying to defend all their attacks.

First and the most obvious is that England can not be sunk. Carriers can be sunk .

Then there are many things such as refueling / rearming and repairing is much harder and slower on a carrier than it is on land bases ( allowing more sorties ). Landing on a carrier with a damaged or out of fuel aircraft is harder than on land bases. A bombed runway is much faster and easier to repair than a blown off carrier deck and so on... In a full assault by missiles submarines and aircraft there would defiantly be several carriers rendered inoperable if not totally sunk.


Also dont forget Britain or the EU would have horrible Intel. they probably wouldn't be aware the ships were there


Actually the British intel is superb.. In the first gulf war British satellite intel was correct often when the US satellite intel was incorrect about Iraqi troop movements.

I dont think spoting a carrier battle groups several hundred miles off of england would be to awfully difficult for them.

I agree with Ludachris a war with Britan in any near future is not going to happen.

However in 25 years who knows what might happen with the rest of europe!!


[edit on 4-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman

I thought you would notice the sarcasm , about the CNN thing. Guess i overestimated you. not as quick as i thought.


If you were being sarcastic then i retract my statement about being a child. It just seemed a bit childish.




Tell me how we would lose 3 to 4 carriers. i would love to know that. maybe one or 2 at the most against the EU, and none against Britain.



Well in a war against Britain while the RAF numbers might be fewer than US navy planes and long range USAF bombers they would have many advantages. You can bet that in such a conflict Britain would go after the carriers instead of setting back trying to defend all their attacks.

First and the most obvious is that England can not be sunk. Carriers can be sunk .

Then there are many things such as refueling / rearming and repairing is much harder and slower on a carrier than it is on land bases ( allowing more sorties ). Landing on a carrier with a damaged or out of fuel aircraft is harder than on land bases. A bombed runway is much faster and easier to repair than a blown off carrier deck and so on... In a full assault by missiles submarines and aircraft there would defiantly be several carriers rendered inoperable if not totally sunk.


Also dont forget Britain or the EU would have horrible Intel. they probably wouldn't be aware the ships were there


Actually the British intel is superb.. In the first gulf war British satellite intel was correct often when the US satellite intel was incorrect about Iraqi troop movements.

I dont think spoting a carrier battle groups several hundred miles off of england would be to awfully difficult for them.

I agree with Ludachris a war with Britan in any near future is not going to happen.

However in 25 years who knows what might happen with the rest of europe!!


I would like you to prove the the american sats didnt works theres did. If they could get there intel and its better than americas.then why do htey and europe rely on our sats. thats why they are makin there own sat system becuase in a time of war we said we wouldnt give access to everyone. so if they already have a great sat system first off why would they use ours and then why would they be involved in that gailio project. if that ever even gets completed, which i doubt it will.


[edit on 4-5-2006 by Heckman]


[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

first off why would they use ours and then why would they be involved in that gailio project. if that ever even gets completed, which i doubt it will.


That isn't a project for intelligence satellites it is for a GPS type satellite positioning system.




[edit on 4-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
[edit on 4-5-2006 by uuhelpus]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
People...People....lets hope the world unites and we as the human race of planet earth ,stop the repitilians from unfolding their global agenda.




NOTE:The USA would kick major ass even but the othe opposing countries would not go down easy. Casualties very likely to be in above 50 mil



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
To get the most out of this discussion, I think you'd need to define your conditions. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to avoid getting bogged down in a theoretical discussion of pure capability.

Given the situation we find ourselves in today, I would be possible to suggest that America COULD be the one to start a world war. If we assume that things could somehow cool off over the next five years, the U.S. situation might be different. Under the right/wrong conditions, we might see America playing catch-up as some agressor romps across the map.

One case in point might be Iran. If the IRG decides to draft and execute a two year mobilization, U.S. diplomats might fritter away valuable time while the Russians and Chinese line up to sell weapons and logistics to the Iranians.

Seeing this happen is not the same thing as doing something about it. U.S. forces are committed in 40 locations world-wide. The current administration might lack the power to build a meaningful coalition as the Iranian army grows. You could makethe ase that the U.S. Congress won't do anyting of merit until they see Iran actually do something...like cross the border in to Iraq.

Bear in mind, this is all hypothetical. This situation I've just described COULD be the trigger that starts a world war. Then again, this fight could stay regional. Using these "what if's," you can see how easy it is to go beyond a discussion of technical capability.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Alot would depend on who we were fighting. First of all, it would depend on who we were fighting. Yes the US does have an impressive Navy, but here is the thing, it is on seperate sides of the country, so split it in half, same goes with the Armed forces. Everyone talks of surface fleet, but most tend to forget about the sub fleets, as those would tend to cause alot of problems on either side. China may or may not be behind in air technology or radar, hard to tell, as most of their stuff is not public knowledge. I do know that several years ago, the plane that was forced to land, was went through with a fine tooth comb by the Chinese and who knows what all they got off of there. I think that in a war between the US and the Chinese, it would depend on the theater of war. Invading the US would be a bad mistake as it would not be the armed forces the invasionary forces would have to worry about, but rather the general populace. And vice versa. Historically speaking the US really never got ahold of the tachtics of gurrellia warfare and so on land would fail. Sea and Air, all depends here again, it would probably come down to to got the upper hand and first strike to determine who would win.

But that is my thoughts.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
*scratchs head*

i'm confused - ive read each post on here and i just don't know where i am!!


*reads post again* "how would the US fare in the next world war"

we had a member talking about how only 2 country's navys has the ablity to move freely around the globe (US/UK).

then the discussion went onto iran/iraq

then we've gone on to US vs EU

back to war on china/russia

then a war britain vs america

i'm lost!!











[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
*scratchs head*

i'm confused - ive read each post on here and i just don't know where i am!!


*reads post again* "how would the US fare in the next world war"

we had a member talking about how only 2 country's navys has the ablity to move freely around the globe (US/UK).

then we've gone from a war with the EU

back to war on china/russia

then a war britain vs america

i'm lost!!

[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



no its one that can send there navy anywhere america, britain would have to send most of there ships out to beable to support a war. Thats why the falklands would end diff now, that is if we didnt send one of our carriers down to save your island

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I disagree with statements saying that Americans never can grasp the element of guerrilla warfare.

The fight against guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan has been one of the most successful campaigns against any guerrilla insurgency force in history!


[edit on 4-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
no its one that can send there navy anywhere, america britain would have to send most of there ships out to beable to support a war. thats why the falklands would end diff now, that is if we didnt send one of our carriers down to save your island


(what a surprise)
an 'americans' history lesson is wrong again!!

actually, you 'offered' one of your carriers but we declined (we fight our problems and wars by ourself)!!

we've all seen how the US pan out fighting a war 'ON ITS OWN' in vietnam....lucky the british was there to help you in iraq and afghanistan eh?









[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Alot would depend on who we were fighting. First of all, it would depend on who we were fighting. Yes the US does have an impressive Navy, but here is the thing, it is on seperate sides of the country, so split it in half, same goes with the Armed forces. Everyone talks of surface fleet, but most tend to forget about the sub fleets, as those would tend to cause alot of problems on either side. China may or may not be behind in air technology or radar, hard to tell, as most of their stuff is not public knowledge. I do know that several years ago, the plane that was forced to land, was went through with a fine tooth comb by the Chinese and who knows what all they got off of there. I think that in a war between the US and the Chinese, it would depend on the theater of war. Invading the US would be a bad mistake as it would not be the armed forces the invasionary forces would have to worry about, but rather the general populace. And vice versa. Historically speaking the US really never got ahold of the tachtics of gurrellia warfare and so on land would fail. Sea and Air, all depends here again, it would probably come down to to got the upper hand and first strike to determine who would win.

Huh the usa has the largest surface and the largest sub force nice try. May or may not be behind us in tech. What do you think 420 billion buys!!! it sure is hell is not as the same as other countries. if it was why would we keeo spendin that much if we would still be on the same playing field as china. you think the crew didnt burn the documents and break all the good stuff. thats what they are trained to do, so they maybe got something but is wasnt like a huge american secret. The only theater that would challenge the usa is in a ground war. Who have got to be kidding me you think in the air or sea china might win. thats what americas are the best at, it would be a joke if that happened. they dont have enough modern aircraft let alone airbourne radar. First stike where is china gonna strike first, they dont have that option , we would see everything coming before they got close to any american troops etc. Also china would have no way to get troops here anyway, so that 2 million man army would just be hanging out wanting to be attacked. At most they would go into south korea, what would cause a problem we would be very out numbered. But once we get our head straight we could take of it. We make up with firepower for what we lack in numbers.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join