How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
It, total domination, all depends on the state of the Net Centric system, and their ability to expand the network to empower all of the drafts and related numbers increases.

If the network has reached the level of itself being a weapon, as they openly desire, then potential enemies face total devastation, and fast. This sin't to cast insignifiance on our 'conventional forces', its to underscore the power that the Network will be able to project with stunning efficency, and that's before it itself become a weapon / aritificial intelligence, and it's all happening faster than you'd ever suspect.




posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
what this thread has come down to seems to be everyone vs america and thats never going to happen.
i dont think its likely at all that britain and america will fight from opposite sides.
and britain and america and together a real threat.
america has the manpower to invade countries with ease and britain has the most diverse and best specialized troops in the world.
that sort of combanation is dangerous to all other nations even china.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The next world war will be nothing like the last, just like WW2 was nothing like WW1 in terms of the type of fighting occuring. I imagine WW3 will be fought with gurella tactics for those fighting the US, as those have proven to be an effective way to fight a very strong conventional military. I think the US can win another world war, but it will be more drawn out than the previous two due to the methods employed by those who will eventually fight the US. I think it will most definately happen someday, and the US will fare just fine I believe, the real question should be when.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I regard it as interesting, that immediately following a post regarding the absurdity of a world versus United States situation, the poster proposes that very same quandry in an attempt to answer it.

However, for the sake of argument, let's dissect a bit:

Yes. Due to the change in weapons, tactics, economics, human geography, and politics, the battlefield will resemble nothing like the last several world-wars.

Yes, the American government will no longer be able to maintain an isolationist status during these wars if they escalate to the status of total war.
[As opposed to the potential 'Proxy World War' wherein multiple small nations battle while funded materially, and immaterially by the 'higher powers.]
Due to interdependency amongst nations politically and economically, also, because of its military status, it would be if little else dragged into the war by its failing allies in an attempt to 'level the field'.

Further, guerilla tactics, ie those seen in Vietnam and Iraq are unlikely to occur, or exact any lasting toll. As a World War is one in where the submission of a state, or alliance of states is the outcome, and not prolonged fighting on the same battlefield -- Which, with today's weapons, would hardly occur anyway in most scenarios -- the idea of tying up ones military, hopelessly bogged down in a temporarily-held city is ludicrous.
[Though arguably, if you'd prefer to think of today's world as being a third-world-war, then the above statement is false. However, my own personal interpretation of war is two or more recognized nations fighting in a number of different arenas; erego I am not applying the above to your viewpoint.]

To state my own brief opinion:
a. I do not believe a World War could happen. There is far too much economic and political co-dependency amongst nations today, that any nation, much less an entire group could do without another military or economically equal state, or group of.
As much as I've heard discussion about Russia, or China, or any number of Middle-Eastern States versus the U.S., or Europe, or any other combination you might imagine, the fact is that the destruction of any modern power in this day and age -- With the assumption that an attack on Europe would be an attack on the Union -- would be catastrophic to victor and victim.

b. If it did occur, the fighting would last months, if that. Without the [inarguable] discussion of atomics, it can simply be agreed that with the weapons we have at our disposal today, both military and national-leaders would suffer a very swift end.

The only way to survive such a war [even if only for a length of time] would be to act as inconspicuously as possible; as little a threat imagineable, and to sacrifice your friends before yourself.
And that, I think, would not produce much of a war at all.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Well Iblis, I for one do not share your optimisim.

I believe there are hidden forces at work that wish for nothing other than a global conflict. These forces have their own agenda[s] and will stop at nothing until they have reached their goal.

Iran is a perfect illustration of my point. If you chose to believe the rhetoric coming from the White House, aided by the clown in Downing Street, Iran is hell bent on obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The case for military action against Iran is escalating weekly, much in the same way that military action against Iraq was wracked up, just prior to the invasion.

The two cases for war are similar - WMDs. Those behind the scenes are slowly and as covertly as possible, bringing their pieces together until, finally, one day the world will wake up and Iran will have been invaded.

Should this happen, I forsee the entire Muslim world uniting against the West on such a scale, that even so called Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia will be forced to turn on their 'friends' in the name of Jihad otherwise they too would face certain destruction.

There are those who hide in the shaddows who would like nothing more than a Christian v Muslim global conflict and I think that there are a goodly many in both the White House and the Pentagon as well as in our own government and financial institutions.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Please note several key differences however:

i. Iran is prepetrating it's own war-propaganda. Whereas with Iraq, facts had to be researched, or twisted, or misconstrued, Iran is actively attempting to incite a political clash.

ii. The entire Muslim World could do little to the United States. OPEC cannot afford to lose the United States as its customer, much less could any coalition of those nations touch the United States beyond its military. [And consdiering would Israel did with its relatively meager forces in the Six-Day and Yom Kuppur, I imagine we might be a bit more lucky.]

I do not think war will not happen.
It will.
However, it will be, if it does happen on a 'world scale' of such great intensity and ferocity, that the 'world' will bow to its knees within days, weeks, or months. No longer half-decades.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 01:33 AM
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


Yeah, but ill bet a years salary that you wouldn't do that. The day Europe throws in with the Chinese against america is the end of europe.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
The next WW would most likely end nuclear. In which case I dont think America or anyone else would "win." It only takes 1 to open pandoras box. Facing deafeat i'm sure there is at least 1 country willing to take everyone down with them.

China - Russia - US - North Korea - Isreal ... for some reason I dont find it hard for any of them to resort to that option. Pakistan - India - UK seem a litte more reserved but who knows when push comes to shove.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
i. First, let me say I do respect England's military prowess, enormously. However, if it was ever a nonsensical 'United States vs. England' war, it would be helplessly tilted. Mostly because of simple numbers, and land-size.
The only way to equate this would be to use their nuclear forces, and that conversation shouldn't even be bothered with, as it all ends in a big mess.

ii. I agree. China's nationalism dictates that any mortal threat to its country, people, culture, would be dealt with overwhelmingly.
Russia all-ready throws its nuclear weight around enough, again, little doubt.
The United States, I imagine, would only resort to those tactics if it's mainland was attacked, which I imagine in a World War would be inevitable, or if the enemy was readying their nuclear arsenal. --Again, another given.
North Korea doesn't even have functioning nuclear weapons, let alone the means to deliver them.
And for Israel? Israel is generally on the military brink, they'd be an easy button to push.

It all comes down to the threat. I don't imagine any nation would use them offensively, risking a first-strike, as the only nation to do this and have even the remote chance of survival against another nuclear nation would be the United States. ---And in that case, survival is simply the definition of remaining a recognized state, and not sterile of all life.

Quite frankly, nuclear exchange should be entirely moot in any thread with a 'vs.' theme. While its understandable that its unavoidable. [A nuclear nation will resort to these tactics in a crisis.] There is no justifiable way to conclude what would happen. There simply isn't.
China - Russia - US - North Korea - Isreal ... for some reason I dont find it hard for any of them to resort to that option. Pakistan - India - UK seem a litte more reserved but who knows when push comes to shove.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
Stop comparing everything to vietman, everyone said thats what iraq is. You cant compare when 3,000 died now and over 50,000 in vietman. We would not lose 50,000 troops if you invaded iran. Get that in your head, you are always making the usa out to be weaker than it is. Its pretty clear iran wouldnt stand a chance .


Iran does have the missle technology to target all 150,000 US troops based in Iraq. Even if they do not have the munitions to destroy those bases outright, this is the modern arena where troops can be elimnated with biological or chemical threats. It could be within reason to eliminate 50,000 US, Iraq based, troops in a one day missle surge upon the disclosed bases. Mind, the US was backing Iraq in the Iran Iraq War and Iraq (US) used chemical weapons heavily against Iran

I agree Iran will not be Vietnam... but I think you underestimate the defensive culture, military capability, and bullheaded nationalism of Iranian politics.

If you really think "Iran wouldn't stand a chance" you obviously are not up to date on the Iran/Iraq war. Read here about human wave attacks, scud attacks, war of the cities, tanker war, etc. :

en.wikipedia.org...

Making war with Iranians could become nasty.

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I do not think the 'US troop losses' due to secondary bio-chem fallout would be very high because the the US army is one of the leaders in NBC protection gear and I believe that the deployments in Iraq would have been given special training(and gear) for the same considering the relevance of the region.

The civilian losses would be catastrophic however..100s of thousands would die..genocide.

This would lead to much internal turmoil within Iran itself, possibly a berakdown in military ranks and thus making it easier for a now infinitely enraged west(and the rest of the world: Russia/China incld) to swiftly decapitate the regime and seize all NBC assets.. Infact I believe the Russians would be the first to go in and do that.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I do not think the 'US troop losses' due to secondary bio-chem fallout would be very high because the the US army is one of the leaders in NBC protection gear and I believe that the deployments in Iraq would have been given special training(and gear) for the same considering the relevance of the region.

The civilian losses would be catastrophic however..100s of thousands would die..genocide.







This would lead to much internal turmoil within Iran itself, possibly a berakdown in military ranks and thus making it easier for a now infinitely enraged west(and the rest of the world: Russia/China incld) to swiftly decapitate the regime and seize all NBC assets.. Infact I believe the Russians would be the first to go in and do that.


russians and chinese would do nothing and will sit and watch and ,so will india , and if west nukes Iran, it will ultimately undoing of the west , because then every country will begin its nuclear weapons program fearing that USA is a becoming a threat to the world , which it already is being considered a threat by many nations , in fact russia will speed up its rearmament process

P.s i want to remind you , the US invasions of middle east and establishments of ABM bases in poland and czech republic,NATO expansion into ex-soviet republics is the ongoing process to encircle Russia ,the war in 1999 on serbia was the first step for beginning of this process . the process of encirclement of Russia is a long term strategy on PNAC(project for the new american century) to establish a global imperial american empire , and the main thing that brezinski(fo keeps calling for is the destruction of Russia , as Bush is the member of PNAC and most of his cronies are also PNAC members, the old fascist Brezinski(former american advisor )book 'the grand chessboard ' which reflects the ideology of PNAC calls for destruction of Russia



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
russians and chinese would do nothing and will sit and watch and ,so will india , and if west nukes Iran, it will ultimately undoing of the west , because then every country will begin its nuclear weapons program fearing that USA is a becoming a threat to the world , which it already is being considered a threat by many nations , in fact russia will speed up its rearmament process


I think you missed my point.

I said that , if Iran uses biochem weapons on Iraq(US), I think the Russians will carry out blitzkreig paratroop/spec ops over Iran to seize control of all bio-chem assets.
Once that is done, Russian 'peacekeeper' heavy armory and air support can roll in the prevent any American 'misadventures'.

It will serve the purpose of keeping the US out of Iran, and it will do wonders for international public relations.
China(Or India) would not be able to execute the same operation(s) because they do not have the logistics to do so in that area.
India also lacks the political will. In any case both(India and China) would be inclined to support this Russian move for a multitude of reasons.

Finally Iran itself would not 'mind' partial Russian control, because it would do two things:

1) Save Iran from any immediate strategic/tactical assault from the US.
2) Keep the infidel Americans/West out of Iran.
3)The Russians would be perceived to 'return' control back to the same regime in sometime..this will most likely be 'under-the-table'.

Its a win-win situation for Russia and it(Russia) has the logistical ability + intel know-how to carry out the same.

Although I'm not sure how the Iranian terror groups et al would take to a Russian invasion. Would the Iranian Rulers be able to keep all under control?

A very interesting and complex situation..



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 



man

someone bumped this really old thread..


[edit on 9/26/2007 by warset]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

I said that , if Iran uses biochem weapons on Iraq(US), I think the Russians will carry out blitzkreig paratroop/spec ops over Iran to seize control of all bio-chem assets.
Once that is done, Russian 'peacekeeper' heavy armory and air support can roll in the prevent any American 'misadventures'.


LOL and the iranians would let this happen, not a chance.


It will serve the purpose of keeping the US out of Iran, and it will do wonders for international public relations.
China(Or India) would not be able to execute the same operation(s) because they do not have the logistics to do so in that area.
India also lacks the political will. In any case both(India and China) would be inclined to support this Russian move for a multitude of reasons.


You think Iraq was bad for the US, Russia being in Iran would be 10 mes worse, just look at all te problems they had trying to subdue tiny Chechnya.


Finally Iran itself would not 'mind' partial Russian control, because it would do two things:

1) Save Iran from any immediate strategic/tactical assault from the US.
2) Keep the infidel Americans/West out of Iran.
3)The Russians would be perceived to 'return' control back to the same regime in sometime..this will most likely be 'under-the-table'.


LOL, right fantasy. Completely unrealistic. Iranians not minding Russian control



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
LOL and the iranians would let this happen, not a chance.

And why would that be??!!

You totally in on the Iranian psyche there?
Firstly read my post again and CAREFULLY.. I think you missed my point as well..



You think Iraq was bad for the US, Russia being in Iran would be 10 mes worse, just look at all te problems they had trying to subdue tiny Chechnya.


Yes I think Iraq was bad for the US..

10 times worse?
And again.. why is that?
Esp when the Iranians would be welcoming them.

You either didn't get my post or you got into such a responding frenzy that you didn't read the entire thing before you started dissecting and quoting!






LOL, right fantasy. Completely unrealistic. Iranians not minding Russian control



Ahh.. so NOW you get the jist of my post.
even though your perspective still remains the same, I'm glad you at least understood what I was trying to say..still, a very rudimentary understanding I'm afraid!


hehe..
Mad Scientist, please back up your statements with supporting ones so that I atleast have something to respond to!!
And please understand the jist of my post!


Thanks

DD3

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
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.


Sea Superiority yeah, but a ground war on a country as large as say Ausralia would strain the US to breaking point.

You simply would'nt be able to keep an offensive up for very long here.

The deserts would get you, the Crocs would get you, the snakes & spiders, 100's of other deadly critters would get you & the Rugged Aussie bush would claim a lot of you.

And to top that off, the Aussies who know their country so well would cut your supply lines and our greatest tactic of all, the fighting retreat will streatch & dwindle your forces & send you bankrupt in a short period of time!!

You would lose!!

America isn't the be all end all. Eventough our militery is quite small, our stockpiles are quite massive & spread out & can quite easily be snapped up in a moments notice & handed out to volunteers all over the country.

The only factor in your favor, is the fact that you already have several massive bases here with 10'000's of personel, ready to move. But even those would be whacked pretty quick. Certainly before re-enforcements could arrive.

Oh and the fact that unlike the Iraqies, we know how to trick your IR & other Detection equipment..lol Half the time you'd never see us coming.

[edit on 12/16/2007 by Ironclad]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Daedalus3




You think Iraq was bad for the US, Russia being in Iran would be 10 mes worse, just look at all te problems they had trying to subdue tiny Chechnya.


Finally Iran itself would not 'mind' partial Russian control, because it would do two things:



What happend in Chechnya was delibarate by the Yeltsen Gov, Yeltsen helped arm the Chechnians and prolonged the war, why do you think all of a sudden Russia has pretty much defeated the rebels?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Given that current U.S involvment in Iraq appears to be escalating whilst we Brits are beginning to stand down, coupled with the smaller involvment in Afghanistan, I fail to see what the U.S can and would do in any future conflict.

As I understand it, U.S forces are rotating to combat duty as fast as, if not faster than their Brit counterparts and if some posters on this site are to be believed, most if not all personnel are deployed against their will.

The conflict in Iraq has all the hallmarks of another Viet Nam War but God forbid the casualties should ever get that high.

The Bush administration has I believe, taken steps to stop any anti-war peace movements which, to me at least, seems somewhat undemocratic, given the feeling of most U.S citizens.

I may be speaking out of turn, and if some posters here believe so, I apologize in advance for that it not my intention.

I do not believe that the American people will simply allow their leaders to drag them in to another conflict - say the invasion of Iran [for whatever reason or pretext] without firstly having exhausted all political avenues and even then, I would think any military action would be limited in its effects, such as the ariel campaign against Serbia.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
We will be glowing like the rest of you.....That and freezing to death from nuke winter..Ummmmmm sounds fun to me.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join