It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 43
1
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Chop the head off of the Dragon......and the body dies.

Take out their leadership and like most houses that dictators build, it will collapse in on itself. Its like taking down a bridge with C-4 (in my Army days) you just took out certain members of the structure...and whole bridge came down.

The CIA Im sure knows who pulls the strings in this heiarchy (hope I spelled that right).


Maximu§




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

And you proof is where?... did US war machines suddenly develop impervious armour? ... if I recall correctly they seemed pretty vulnerable in iraq to simple fragmentation grenades and home made bombs


That means what when you're talking about our navy and airpower, exactly?

China isn't going to be be shooting at humvees if a war fights (even still, our armored humvees can take a blast from just about anything the Iraqis have, our tanks are nearly invulnerable).

An insurgency and a full scale war are very different.


Lets see... China's land mass is about the same as the US. Just think of the area those jets are going to have to cover.
Currently US allies are, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea... none of which would be willing to place themselves in the firing line of Chinese ballistic missiles.
Did you know China is the only country in the world that has spent the last 20 years researching into turning ballistic missiles into precision guided weaponry... accurate to a few meters. Nobody knows how advanced they are in this area, though it would be foolish to underestimate


All of China's neighbors feel threatened by China already. Japan is looking to buy advanced cruise missiles from America. To say that they wouldn't risk the great threats of Japan is stupid. China doesn't have the capability to bomb very far from their own nation. They can barely reach Australia.

American B-2's fly all the way from the Northern part of the US to Iraq. They have a huge range. Japan and China aren't that far apart. We only have to start at the coasts, then we can move our navy closer.


I won't argue here... american pilots are better trained, but remember missile technology is roughly the same on both sides... so really it's all about fire and forget these day's. And what do you think will be making up the bulk of any US assault?... certainly not raptors.


Missile technology is not equal. AMRAAMS are the best missile there is. They're 90% accurate. The avionics of American planes are far superior. And by the time China has any significant number of fourth generation planes, America will have over a hundred Raptors. A hundred Raptors are more than to deal with China's airforce. They're enough to deal with almost anyones within the next decade.


China like I mentioned before will be using a selectionm of high accuracy ballistic (non-nuclear) missiles against carrier groups. B-2's can be detected with passive radars.


That's all assuming China has accurate ballistic missiles. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Of course you don't...

And China doesn't have PCL.


Yes... it had a malfunction ... I suppose the same could be said for the US submarine captains brain after it recently ran aground.
China's submarine force is deadly... they recently proved that twice against Japan and the pentagon has many published articles mentioning them as the number one threat to US shipping.


The two are completely different. Subs run aground frequency. How often do they stray hundreds of miles off course and end up in foreign waters all on accident?


Stealth does not make an aircraft invisible... it simply returns lower yeilds making them harder to find and track. I have seen a video broadcast on the BBC showing a type-42 destroyer tracking a B2 bomber coming into UK airspace... the Americans denied it until shown the video.


Let's see some sources. As I've found in the past, most of what you say is only half-true.


Yes... use countries even further away ... fighter aircraft do not have that kind of range


I'm pretty sure the F-22 has the range to go from Japan to China, at least close enough to launch a cruise missile. The B-2 certainly can do it.

You can say whatever you want about China being able to detect stealth, but they're not going to do it from a hundred miles off their coast, now are they? A B-2 can fire cruise missiles well out of range, and head back to America.

Once coastal defenses are reduced, its safer for carriers to move in.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
China isn't going to be be shooting at humvees if a war fights (even still, our armored humvees can take a blast from just about anything the Iraqis have, our tanks are nearly invulnerable).

Always confident in the armour?

Is that why americans are scrapping for armour in iraq?
Yeah sure , take a blast what about the rest of the vehicle and the people?

I remember a thread where an american tank's armour was punctured and the tank almost exsploded.



[qoute]
All of China's neighbors feel threatened by China already. Japan is looking to buy advanced cruise missiles from America. To say that they wouldn't risk the great threats of Japan is stupid. China doesn't have the capability to bomb very far from their own nation. They can barely reach Australia.

Yeah and the world is afraid of americas "war on terror" which more reminds me of a war of conquest.


American B-2's fly all the way from the Northern part of the US to Iraq. They have a huge range. Japan and China aren't that far apart. We only have to start at the coasts, then we can move our navy closer.

A B-2 cant win a war for you, simple enough.
Your navy can be taken down by anything even an old destroyer in a war exercise.
Also your navy can be taken down by mobile SAS missiles.
Remeber a SAS is cheaper than a thomahawk.



Missile technology is not equal. AMRAAMS are the best missile there is. They're 90% accurate. The avionics of American planes are far superior. And by the time China has any significant number of fourth generation planes, America will have over a hundred Raptors. A hundred Raptors are more than to deal with China's airforce. They're enough to deal with almost anyones within the next decade.

Thats being overconfident, your only getting 200 odd and frankly you would send mabye 80 or 90 at most because anymore would seriosly damage your defense.



That's all assuming China has accurate ballistic missiles. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Of course you don't...

And China doesn't have PCL.

Do you have proof it has no vehicles capable of doing that , no.
Yet another disputed yet undecideable question.


The two are completely different. Subs run aground frequency. How often do they stray hundreds of miles off course and end up in foreign waters all on accident?

Whoa whoa here....your saying subs as in the US subs , right?
Also Can you navigate underwater with a stopclock,chart and calculator?
UK subs have had only 1 incident in the last 20 years.....



Let's see some sources. As I've found in the past, most of what you say is only half-true.

I have also heard of that incident AND where they tracked a B-2 fly by with rapier SAM's.


I'm pretty sure the F-22 has the range to go from Japan to China, at least close enough to launch a cruise missile. The B-2 certainly can do it.

Air craft wont win a war.
Also jets need a runway, remove the runway and no jets.


You can say whatever you want about China being able to detect stealth, but they're not going to do it from a hundred miles off their coast, now are they? A B-2 can fire cruise missiles well out of range, and head back to America.

The B-2 CAN do that but when a country has mobile defenses cruise missiles cant hit things. You need to get your head out of the skies, besides you think america could afford another war?


Once coastal defenses are reduced, its safer for carriers to move in.

This isnt like WW2 the defenses move and carriers can be sunk.
Like when the USS nimitz has been actually forced off course by an old ship so i think the latest missiles can destroy a carrier.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Is that why americans are scrapping for armour in iraq?
Yeah sure , take a blast what about the rest of the vehicle and the people?


The armored humvees now make up the large majority of those in Iraq. This is all relatively new, so it wasn't available as much before the war. The amount of humvees that have been armored has been great, though. They've gone from basically none to almost the entire force in Iraq.

The armored humvees have also been able to take the blasts, and prevent our troops from taking any injury.


I remember a thread where an american tank's armour was punctured and the tank almost exsploded.


I love these almosts and single cases that you guys always provide to try and undermine America's capability.


Yeah and the world is afraid of americas "war on terror" which more reminds me of a war of conquest.


Maybe some Europeans are running around crying, but I doubt many are scared. I know their governments aren't scared.


A B-2 cant win a war for you, simple enough.
Your navy can be taken down by anything even an old destroyer in a war exercise.
Also your navy can be taken down by mobile SAS missiles. Remeber a SAS is cheaper than a thomahawk.


They've never be in range while these coastal defenses exist.

And to think that China with lower tech, and training is going to beat our navy with their navy is absurd.


Thats being overconfident, your only getting 200 odd and frankly you would send mabye 80 or 90 at most because anymore would seriosly damage your defense.


In an all out war, we'd send all. We're not talking about Iraq here (how many times have I said that, now?). America has no need for defense. No one can attack America.

And if war broke out with China, we'd see F-22's being pumped out as fast as possible. There'd end up being a lot more then the current amount ordered. People don't like to talk about why we're only getting 200 instead of the original 700.


Do you have proof it has no vehicles capable of doing that , no.
Yet another disputed yet undecideable question.


Your asking me to prove I negative. I can't prove that Germany didn't have super rockets that could go to the moon, either, because no site is going to say someone doesn't have something like that.


Whoa whoa here....your saying subs as in the US subs , right?
Also Can you navigate underwater with a stopclock,chart and calculator?
UK subs have had only 1 incident in the last 20 years.....


How many UK subs are there, and how often are they deployed? In the case of America's, it's been almost constant. And that's 1 incident you KNOW of, or that's been revealed.


I have also heard of that incident AND where they tracked a B-2 fly by with rapier SAM's


I believe I already address your claim in another thread.


Air craft wont win a war.
Also jets need a runway, remove the runway and no jets.


China can't destroy the runways in Japan. They don't have the capability.


The B-2 CAN do that but when a country has mobile defenses cruise missiles cant hit things. You need to get your head out of the skies, besides you think america could afford another war?


America's economy has been going great after fighting two wars. Europe has a larger deficit then we do. Think Europe can still afford their social programs?

America can always finance a war.

And mobile defenses can't out manuever a cruise missile. They won't be able to track it. They won't know its coming.

What, do you think that all of the nations in the world have never thought to develop a counter to mobile defenses, something they'd most likely have to face?

Defensive weapons are never on par with attacking weapons because they are developed after the offensive weapon



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The armored humvees now make up the large majority of those in Iraq. This is all relatively new, so it wasn't available as much before the war. The amount of humvees that have been armored has been great, though. They've gone from basically none to almost the entire force in Iraq.

The armored humvees have also been able to take the blasts, and prevent our troops from taking any injury.

Any proof?
Yes now but remember thats only iraq there are a hell of a lot more humvees than in iraq.
Even still the iraqi's are using RPG's the chinese have for more powerful weapons.



I love these almosts and single cases that you guys always provide to try and undermine America's capability.

Ok lets see an unknown projectile missed the ammo by less than a foot...close enough?



Maybe some Europeans are running around crying, but I doubt many are scared. I know their governments aren't scared.

The governments are the country and also many middle eastern are afraid of america comeing in "freeing" them.
BTW is that trying to say we euroopeans are all cowards??



They've never be in range while these coastal defenses exist.

OKAY STOP WITH THE COASTAL DEFENSES!
Look what i am trying to say is that these defenses move yes thats right, they dont stay in one place......


And to think that China with lower tech, and training is going to beat our navy with their navy is absurd.

Your training is not hard to beat, your navy has the tech but no real practicle exsperience apart from shelling a shore or launching thomahawks.



In an all out war, we'd send all. We're not talking about Iraq here (how many times have I said that, now?). America has no need for defense. No one can attack America.

Thats even more overconfident, you think the US is going to send the entire US fighter force to china! HA HA!
Aww man seriosly no one is THAT crazy , could you imagine the outcry!
"sir we sent our fighters to deal with the threat..."
"how many fighters.?"
"Every one sir"
"so we have no air power to defend us?"
"no...."


And if war broke out with China, we'd see F-22's being pumped out as fast as possible. There'd end up being a lot more then the current amount ordered. People don't like to talk about why we're only getting 200 instead of the original 700.

Yeah and how long does that take? Pretty long, and with a little help from korea they could launch a good shot at alaska.



Your asking me to prove I negative. I can't prove that Germany didn't have super rockets that could go to the moon, either, because no site is going to say someone doesn't have something like that.

Well there are sites that would show how things dont exist like anti hoax sites, why wouldnt they...exsplain your "logic"



How many UK subs are there, and how often are they deployed? In the case of America's, it's been almost constant. And that's 1 incident you KNOW of, or that's been revealed.

Well lets put it this way , I heard that one incident off the news and the only other one was off austrilia, and that was just a scrapeing and they could still carry on. (That BTW was from a person who works at faslane naval base which if anyone new about subs is the main sub base of the UK.

There are many subs, and they are deployed very often just as much as the US.


I believe I already address your claim in another thread.

What that you wont believe anything unless it is US based or US cheering?



China can't destroy the runways in Japan. They don't have the capability.

Yeah sure they cant, what about SF? Or even a simple sub hitting the bases?


America's economy has been going great after fighting two wars. Europe has a larger deficit then we do. Think Europe can still afford their social programs?

Yeah thats why the pound is worth almost twice as much as the US dolar?
Europe can afford and infact one of its countries is the richest in the world.


America can always finance a war.

Yeah at what cost?
The US military cant fight if its country work..


And mobile defenses can't out manuever a cruise missile. They won't be able to track it. They won't know its coming.
[/qupte]
Do you think they have onnly one set of them?
Thats it the mighty force has only one set of units...wow.


What, do you think that all of the nations in the world have never thought to develop a counter to mobile defenses, something they'd most likely have to face?

What, dont you think they developed a counter to the counter? Mobile defenses change and B2 bombers cant be on station every hour.


Defensive weapons are never on par with attacking weapons because they are developed after the offensive weapon

Technocally every weapon is offensive and defensive so your argument is about as useless as the underwater hairdryer.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
This isn't the fuedal ages where they were forced to go fight for some King while their families starved. Our soldiers have the highest pay, and get the most benefits. They are the best equipped. They have every reason to fight well. Our soldiers believe in what they're fighting for. Our soldiers have high morale.


Is enlistment in the USMC purely voluntary??


Yes, enlisment in all of the US armed forces is voluntary.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   


America has no need for defense. No one can attack America.



Did you realize he is a troll?

[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteinx
Did you realize he is a troll?

[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]

Thanks, no i am not a troll, i dont create arguments othere people do.
In fact, call me a troll.
Call me an ignorant a$$h*** who has nothing better to do than to come online and insult people!
If i was i wouldnt be here, I would be out going onto everysite i can go on and start threads and arguments.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by proteinx
Did you realize he is a troll?

[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]

Thanks, no i am not a troll, i dont create arguments othere people do.


No, I am not saying you, I am saying the guy who said "American does not need defense, no weapon can attack America", whoever said that, who is a troll.

I browsed many other forum related to military, that is the core definition of troll---when he/she claimed "xxx is the bigest, best, almost equal to the god, no one can even touch xxx"---that is sign of troll and this is accepted by many forum. I donot know why this forum keep a troll here, I guess it would entertain lots people.



[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteinx


No, I am not saying you, I am saying the guy who said "American does not need defense, no weapon can attack America", whoever said that, who is a troll.

I browsed many other forum related to military, that is the core definition of troll and this is accepted by many forum. I donot know why this forum keep a troll here, I guess it would entertain lots people.



I am sorry, really sorry.
I have to agree one of these attitudes could be known as a troll.
Once again i am sorry,
bad call by me...

DW out ( Feeling like a jacka$$ and rightly so)



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by proteinx


No, I am not saying you, I am saying the guy who said "American does not need defense, no weapon can attack America", whoever said that, who is a troll.

I browsed many other forum related to military, that is the core definition of troll and this is accepted by many forum. I donot know why this forum keep a troll here, I guess it would entertain lots people.



I am sorry, really sorry.
I have to agree one of these attitudes could be known as a troll.
Once again i am sorry,
bad call by me...

DW out ( Feeling like a jacka$$ and rightly so)


no, I shall apologize for my unclear expression. English is not my native language.
But, you know what, watch the troll, just dnot feed him, you will see he will become really angry and entertaining.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteinx
no, I shall apologize for my unclear expression. English is not my native language.
But, you know what, watch the troll, just dnot feed him, you will see he will become really angry and entertaining.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]

Yeah i suppose it would be fun, what is your native language BTW?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteinx

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by proteinx


No, I am not saying you, I am saying the guy who said "American does not need defense, no weapon can attack America", whoever said that, who is a troll.

I browsed many other forum related to military, that is the core definition of troll and this is accepted by many forum. I donot know why this forum keep a troll here, I guess it would entertain lots people.



I am sorry, really sorry.
I have to agree one of these attitudes could be known as a troll.
Once again i am sorry,
bad call by me...

DW out ( Feeling like a jacka$$ and rightly so)


no, I shall apologize for my unclear expression. English is not my native language.
But, you know what, watch the troll, just dnot feed him, you will see he will become really angry and entertaining.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]


Actually, America is the biggest, most elite military force in the world, and it could be even far more powerful if the U.S. wanted to be. Just accept the fact; no need for arguments. No, American equipment isn't all invincible, but the United States has done what sole few countries have done in history, which is create a military dominance that no one can match, no one in the rest of the world.

Even if the United States ever collapsed, it would be a long time before anyone matched the military might it has reached, technogically.

As for battling China, China will get tougher as time goes on, but in an all-out war with China, for whatever reason, if nukes weren't used (which is pretty unrealistic, but let's say that for now), the United States would win.

China cannot defend its borders the way the United States can; the United States is bordered by Canada, who is no threat, and Mexico, again no threat. Aside from that, the United States i bordered by the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans. The United States has a road system that allows us to be able to move the military from one side of the country to another in wartime.

There is no real way to attack America; not unless you try to cross the sea to invade, which is pointless with modern tech defenses. China is different.

China is surrounded by a lot of different countries that could or could not become threats; most of China is covered by mountains, which is why the Chinese population is mainly crammed into the eastern side of the country. Which means not only does China have a lot more border threats to worry about then the U.S., but it can't move an army to those border threats the way the United States could.

To take out China would not require covering its entire landmass, just most of the east coast mainly, as that is where all the people are. It is not like the United States, where everyone is spread across the entire nation.

China, in the future, will be a match no doubt, but the all-out victor would be the U.S. I am sure (again, remember, ignoring the use of nukes for this scenario).



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The Chinese leadership has no clothes, idiologically speaking, and is terrified of anything disturbing the status quo.
The middle kingdom has always feared most the civil war that seems to recur every 3 generations or so; the massive disparity of wealth that characterizes the current state seems to be building toward another one.
We don't go to war there... we sit back and try to pick the winner this time.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The US has a window of 11 years to cripple China before it is too late... This is according to the pentagon in a letter to the white house.

After this "window" is up... China will be unstoppable in both economic and millitary sense.

It's fairly recent news so a quick search on google should turn something up



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I got some news, I read some of this from my last post, and I didn’t read the rest, there’s too much but here’s what I think from what ive read

We have yet to ever see the U.S military at full-scale war. People think that this war with Iraq and Afghanistan was big, but in comparison of a major war with China, it was nothing...

Now, of course China can reach the USA with ICBMs, but it wouldn’t do that unless it was about to lose completely assuming the USA didn’t take out Chinas control over the nukes. And ill tell you why...

If the Chinese launch a counterattack at the USA. They would be destroying themselves... a massive attack-(I mean massive like you have no comprehension-no comprehension at all)-would hit China so hard with so many ICBMs, that Asia would be a radiation waste land and every city in china would be wiped off the map...

Now-assuming Chinas leaders don’t want China to be completely wiped off of earth, china mostly likely rather fight conventionally to push the usa out with brute force. But here’s the thing

The USA has the power to project the majority of its air force if needed to China, by carriers. And we have the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in existence-the MOAB (Massive ordinance Air Blast/Burst), which with just a few of those could knock Chinas massive population to 1.3 million....(also, the usa could use its B-2’s to drop nukes without China even knowing)

The ONLY threat to the U.S.A in terms of ground warfare. Is guerrilla combatants, which would most likely be dealt with leveling the entire city-because lets face it, a war of this magnitude would only be fought if China was like some Hitler fanatic and causing trouble... the U.S has NO advantage to warring with its biggest trading partner as it is now.

Anyway, there’s my post, have a splendid evening.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by imAMERICAN

If the Chinese launch a counterattack at the USA. They would be destroying themselves... a massive attack-(I mean massive like you have no comprehension-no comprehension at all)-would hit China so hard with so many ICBMs, that Asia would be a radiation waste land and every city in china would be wiped off the map...



While, I have to remind you that you only describled one side scenario.
I never doubt that China major cities and prosperous future might be wiped out, however, let's take look at USA at the same time, if China attack USA with nukes at this season, look at the weather channels and American geogrphic map, from Denver to the whole mid, to the whole east and whole south, There is almost no mountains. At this season, the strong wind can cross the whole america except west coast. The radiation generated from hundreds and thousands nukes attacking the major cities can be widely spead to every corner of this continent. First of all, 80% of American live around cities, that means immdiate deaths in few days, the small towns residence around the country will suffer the radiation completely in next few weeks. Secondly, after major cities being wiped out, basically no business will still stay in USA. (dont forget, American bond and American stock market are mainly supported by foreigner investors), and the foundamental industry--agrictulture will be completely destroyed, who dare to eat food produced in America then? The water resouces, especially are mainly from the five-lakes area, three 5-Million-ton nukes attacking these lakes could simply make any person who drink water from there die quickly. As far as the west coast, enough nukes strike can absolutely cause severe earthquake. The whole west coast are very fragile geographically. So, China make a lead, the nature will do the rest to finish the west coast.

By contrast, only 50% Chinese live surrounding major cities, 50% Chinese live in all those rural areas----check China geographic map, mountains after mountains in China, there no wind coming cross the whole country at all. (that is one of the reason you barely hear any tonordo news from China) You have to project completely massive nukes towards China to make sure you can cover everywhere. But guess what? the wind can easily spread the overdosed radiation to Korea, Japan, and Russia (most wind comes from Russia towards south and east), not mention the whole south east Asia. Now, if you want to destroy the water resouce---Yangzi river, you have to bury the Tibet and Hymelaya, that means the radiation can come all the way to Indian and Pakistan (Because you still have to use lots nukes to destory the water resouces) and that overdosed radiation will just do same thing as they do to Japanese and Korean-------they are going to kill all the Indians cause there is almost no mountains across india and the wind can wipe through the whole sub continent.

Now, you see, if you want to completely wipe off Chinese, at least whole east Asia, and might be south Asia die together. Otherwise, there is not enough radiation to kill all Chinese. But when you want to do that, I donot beleive the rest of the world will let any American live either.

that is my post and analysis.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by proteinx]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Unless America just acts completely reckless Europe and at the very least Australia will side with the US.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by darktone
off topic

there's a joke about china that if they jump
at the same time we will be experiencing
earthquake with a magnitude of 7 and if they
piss at the same time, they will flood the world


How racist is that?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Actually, America is the biggest, most elite military force in the world, and it could be even far more powerful if the U.S. wanted to be. Just accept the fact; no need for arguments. No, American equipment isn't all invincible, but the United States has done what sole few countries have done in history, which is create a military dominance that no one can match, no one in the rest of the world.

The american military relies on tech nothing else.
The US is not elite it just has numbers and a large amount of tech and money there are better troops and men and tech.




There is no real way to attack America; not unless you try to cross the sea to invade, which is pointless with modern tech defenses. .

Not really, all the defenses are really just mobile and the stationary ones are just sensors nothing more.
An amphibios force could land and hold a beach head on american soil.





China, in the future, will be a match no doubt, but the all-out victor would be the U.S. I am sure (again, remember, ignoring the use of nukes for this scenario).

How? The USAF would be on equal terms by numbers.
The USN would be sunk by sunburns..
The US army has to fight an entire country and hold it.
Impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join