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: 22
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:56 AM
Being myself in military US would be unstoppable, Yet one thing holds back Rules of engagement. Yup politicians would # troops just like in Vietnam and Now even the war in afghan and iraq, going in with one arm behind our back.
If we had No ROE's we would take the world, since we do have fat asses writing these who have never seen combat i doubt conquering the world would happen.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:11 AM
As much as I hate the United States I am a realist. The United States has the largest military in the world. It's the largest first world country in the world. I don't believe that the United States is the best trained in the world their strategy is always overwhelm. When you have a army that size you can send so many men tanks jets etc that it just overwhelms everyone. When you take alot of USA's gadgets out of the way then they usually don't fair very well like in Vitenam. Any ways I am getting off topic. It would all depend on what the United States was doing when the 3rd world war broke out. If they were doing something ridiculous like they are right now fighting Iraq for no reason and fighting in Afghanistan, America would not stand a very good chance. Even with all the United States money and firepower I doubt they could fight 3 wars at once all by their lonesome. America has been on a bit of a losing streak since WW2 end. Korea, Vitenam now Iraq, USA military hasn't been doing so good that last 50 or so years. If the USA is not in any other wars, or if the USA is backed up by other allied countries they would probably be a real force to reckon with.

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by justin_barton3

Like Iraq, right? Guerrilla have no real bases, they base out of the general occupied population, and unless you're considering genocide, you cant win.
Unless you convince them to stop fighting, other than that, its poking a hornet's nest with a stick, might kill some, but you'll just piss off all the other hornets that did survive.

As for the OP:
You're looking at your campaign as if you're attacking someone who's got no Anti-Air defenses. If you threw a "major air campaign" against someone who holds his ground in Air Defense, you're looking at a LOT of cassualties.

Eitherway, there are only a handful of countries that can hold their own in Air Defense, mainly being: Israel, Russia, some Nato Countries, and maybe China in the next 10years. So we'll think of them as our Theoretic "enemies".

All are pretty familiar with Guerrilla war, either fighting it, or sponsoring it from behind the scenes, so on that area, the States deffo does not want to go there with any of them, so you're looking at a fast conflict.

All have tactical nukes as well (Israel ofc doesnt acknowledge any nukes whatsoever). And if its a big war, they WILL be used (doesnt mean cities will be glassed, but on a loosing situation, any of them would be prone to hit the button, its always been an option for all parties involved in this "theory".)

There is simply no way you will deterr any of said parties not to use a tactical nuke, its like asking your soldiers not to use their ammo. You're assuming all out war, so all gloves are off.

While Stealth Bombers cannot be seen easily in radar, they are not indestructible, and the Russians and Israeli's should have low frequency wave radars lying around (turns out, old radars are much better at giving you the general direction of a stealthy target).

Who knows...maybe they even got something figured out to find em. Something like monitoring US air bases, and trying to intercept them near to their bases. Perhaps even preemtively bombing them, since all parties have very capable Air to Ground capabilities.

Carrier groups are not invulnerable to Submarine threats, specially not to Diesel-Electric, AIP, etc subs. Russians have em, Nato has em, and so do the Chinese, cant remember if Israeli's do.

Any of the above peeps would be willing to sacrifice a sub to get a torp on a CVN. Not to even mention cheap supersonic naval missiles.

Ground wise, it would depend who got air superiority, or how did the "enemy" neutralized the US air Superiority. I know of at least one Stealthbomber have been shot down from the ground (Serbia) by a fairly capable Anti-Air force (they downed lots of Cruise missiles as well)

One could only guess what would happen when fighting really well trained peeps. Either the Stealthbombers neutralize the enemy AA completely, or it ends up in a stalemate, since the States wont compromise ground units before securing completely the air.

So basically, you'd know who would win in the first week(s) of the conflict.
When you hear a stealthbomber or two were downed (if its even reported at all), you'll know its over, and a peace agreement, armstice/whatever is coming. If you dont, it means the AA has been wiped out, and US air will whoop the enemy armor and the conflict will enter gueriilla-mode.

There will be no more WW1-WW2 style wars, conflicts will tend to be fairly fast unless occupation happens....then its FUBAR.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:43 AM
Well if we and out allies were well-rested and at full capacity, I would say that we would do pretty well.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:17 AM
Answer for these people who think US/UK Navies will sail freely around world to conduct their missions...

top topics
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in