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.


USA vs. the World

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:08 AM
How can America take on the whole world?

It can barely take on Iraq.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:14 PM
Nuke France and we'd back off? I think we'd be come stronger friends

Neither would win to be honest, if either the US tried to invade England lets say then England and all of its allies would nuke America (Due to being overwhelmed with number, not neccesarily skill. (Assuming America goes country by country so it is able to concentrate forces)) and America would send all its nukes out. Much of the world would be destroyed in mere hours.

Therefore any take over would have to be without any actual main force, the armies may then be used to keep peace, then it does come down to the skill of special forces (In a 'get in quick, kill the leader and assume control' type of operation) of which many European countries have the best. Using England as an example not only are our best the S.A.S they are also our best counter terrorism meaning we can protect our own government whilst attacking another.

But none of this will ever happen, we'll destroy ourselves long before that.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:51 PM
Reading some of the reply's on thids forum have made me laugh really hard.

There are some people who have a little knowledge of what each army is capable of but there are alot of people on here who are just saying My dad's bigger than your dad.

The last time I looked, the UK and the USA were allies and both part of NATO.

I really don't think any of the sits would happen unless the UK was overun by a extremist organisation and then the USA might come to liberate us, ( well here is hoping ).

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:46 PM
Not for nothing but this idea that the US wouldn't see a economic attack coming is rediculous. We would strike back just as hard economically.

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:40 AM
Nuclear war:

There is no way America would lose, would we have to sacrfice a few cities? sure, however remeber when we told NK that thier missle was going to be shot down? Remeber when we told Russia we are gonna put weapons platforms in space? Remeber Bushes, "Missle shield"? Now if they're talking about it, how far along do you think we've gone?

How many aircraft do you think we have mounted with patriot 3's? How will those ICBM's make it into US airspace with no GPS? (Granted the Russians have thier own system, but we've already proven we can shoot it down) Sure they can rely on the older targeting method's and MIRV's hopeing that 1 of thier 10 warheads lands within a suffeceint kill radius, but those will be much more easy to defeat w/o course corrections.

The us leads in first strike and retaliatory strike capibilities, combineing that with the most credible defensive systems in the world, nuclear warfare really isn't an option.

The US destroying itself:

The sleeping giant. Kicking a rabid dog. America is a terrible thing to behold when it agrees on something. Look at the great things we have done, ramping up war production to the rate of one bomber an hour rolling off of production lines during WWII, splitting the atom, landing on the moon, our GDP. Yes when the USofA decides it's time to come together, theres not much that can stop it.

We lose a city to another country, of course there will be those that claim it is our fualt, or that we did it ourselves, but the people of this country would call out for blood, and there would be buckets of it. Even with the rest of the world isolateing us, not buying our products, not sending us lead painted toys, or fancy wine. Do you think we could not do without?

A simple trip down the southern border nets us enough oil to defned ourselves indeffinately (I'm looking at you mexico and venezuala) we don't really have to invade mexico, just start busing thier people in to turn on our industrial complex and Fox(the president, not the network) would be overjoyed to hitch his wagon to manifest destiny 2.0. And with the influx of 100 million more workers, or production shoots right thru the roof.

Ohhh Canada, America's hat. Does anyone really think they would side with the EU? We send in 2 squads of commandos into thier 6% alchol beer factorys and hockey rinks and they will do what ever we damn well tell them too. Granted im sure the Quebecers will cause some problems, cause thats what Quebecers do, but a couple of conssesions, (Ok you can have your own damn hockey leauge) and they'll toe the line.

In short, if the world was truely against us, and it was threw no real fault of our own, I feel that not only would we come together inorder to make whatever sacrfices were nessicary to use foce on a scale not seen before. but we would coerce enough of our neighbors, to hep aide in bringing this shock and awe to bear.


Who's gonna # with us? In gulf war 1 we were 50 years ahead of everyone else on the planet,(Here is where I check to see if anyone is still reading) According to Moores law our computer tech would have doubled 5 times in that period, while everyone elses has as well, since we had the 50 year edge, it follows a quadratic pattern of bein even more of an edge now.

When 1 F22 can engage 20 F14'2 and 16's and they were the top shelf fighter of 10 years ago, how could anyone hope to get air superiority over us? It is the most devestateing deffensive, and offensive conventional weapon on the battlefield today. Try to outrun it, try to outmanever it, hell try to find it. you just can't and wind up splashed all over the clear blue skies.

How would the world comunicate to carry out thier attack's? they gonna run thier own phone lines? Right now 80% of world wide communications ends up at a switching station in the US. How many firewalls has our CIA infiltrated?

Caraecter count. In short The US can and will hold it's own. Peace to U.

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:24 AM
Ahhh Always a fun topic for a though experiment. I don't think this type of situation would actually arise, but it is fun to think about it; Like zombie invasions. It all goes out the window if we include Nukes, so lets leave them out of this for now.

For people that say we can't even handle Iraq:
Our forces in Iraq are severely limited in what they can do. In order to "play nice" there are many rules they have to follow. We are also not trying to wipe out the Iraqi civilian population. In a USA vs. The World scenario we would not even think about rules and restrictions.

The US military absolutely sucks at occupation and peacekeeping roles. Our military was designed with all out destruction in mind. It is very, very good at that job. If you just want to smash a country into rubble and move on, then we would do a damn fine job of it.

The World spends about 2% more on it's military than the USA. Yeah, read that again. I'm not sure if black budgets were included in that figure, so we might actually spend more.

The World has more troops available, but might not have an easy time getting them here. They probably would have to land in South America and come up through Mexico or down through Canada.

I don't know if we would win, but it would be one hell of a fight.

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:01 AM
I suggest to some of you to read General Sir John Hackett's book ''How to make War''.

War is not won by sheer might alone. Even the mightiest Empires/Nations have eventually fallen, normally to 'inferior' forces. Wars are won by he who can sustain their finances/economy longer. Logistics, Economics and Attrition is how wars are won.

How long do you think any major power would last economically in an all out war nowadays? ...... not very long.

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:28 AM

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:28 AM

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:19 AM
reply to post by devilwasp

It's OK is it? Just cause he isn't having a dig at Britain?

HE is talking absolute bollocks! he has just made one of the worst posts I have ever seen on this forum, showing absolutely no understanding at all about WWII, it's politics or it's warfare.

Also spouted the sansationalist rubbish about an invading Islam. Talk about Moral Panic!

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by WeBDeviL

And, on top of that, Americans are born fighters. We became a country through a fight. We have it in our blood.


Haha! those special Americans! How come you think you are so far superior and individual.

Every single European country got to where they are now through hundreds, even thousands of battles. It is human nature that countries are born through war, America is definitely NOT the only one.

Born fighters? No more than any other country.

What about the British, with their Anglo, Saxon, Norman, Briton, Celtic, Viking blood? I country that has been fighting with themselves, invaders and constantly invaded themselves? That is a country who have been born out of warfare.

What about the French, who, no matter what the American like to think, have one of the very best military histories.

The Germans? We all know what they can do!

The Scandinavians, with their Viking blood. As tough as they come.

Spain and Portugal, massive historical naval importance, conquerers of lands, as are the Dutch.

The Eastern Europeans, two centuries of fighting and persecution, no one today has had life so hard in the developed World.

And please stop presuming the UK will automatically join America, they are part of the EU, it is more than likely Australia and Canada would also be with them, unless they took complete independence.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:18 AM

Originally posted by thehamsamiam
On 07-04-1776 A bunch of disorganized hillbillies shooting from rooftops changed your little world.

Go and read the history of the war of independence with an unbiased mind, please.

You will see quite clearly that it was the French, Spanish and Dutch that caused us to pull out.

Not that it was a problem, George and Parliament weren't particularly bothered about American at the time, they thought it wasn't worth bothering with, believe me, if they did, they would have had more than the measly 10,000 soldiers stationed there.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:35 AM

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Ireland huh? Maybe only the North would fall in with the EU. The southern resistance still resists Britain and the EU, although they will probably fall into it due simply to the odds. However, they still remain (for the most part) pro-U.S.


You have been speaking with such authority about Europe, a subject you seem to know little about. Ask the Irish everyman about his thoughts on the USA.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

And also, stop with calling us "Yanks." We don't use any derogatory terms to the Brits.

Please don't think "Yank" is a derogatory term, it really isn't. The history of the word is quite interesting, you should look it up.

Most think it came into being as a mispronunciation of the Dutch word for Englishman.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain
How long do you think a conflict would last if the French were the main protagonists on one side??? Still unsure? Look at history and you will get your answer again and again and again.

[edit on 7-4-2005 by Englishman_in_Spain]

Haha! really? You think? You should take some of your own advice and go and look at French military history. They have traditionally been one of the best and most successful military s of all time! They have beaten us several times.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by triplesod

Yank is a better name to be called than the 'septics' I think that is more of an Australian term, let me explain: Yank sounds like tank, then we just throw in septic for the hell of it (septic tank) Lo and behold Septic! No offense btw.

On topic, I think the country with the most available raw materials, as well as a bit of isolation will certainly hang in there, yep Australia. We will shoot anything and every down with firestorm! Yeah!! Blind patriotism! woo!

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by insite

Yes the United Kingdom IS in the European Union, we don't have the Euro (yet) will do by 2020.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:18 PM
Alot of people here need to pull their heads out of their respective orifice's and read what they're writing. A-lot of it in nonsensical drivel, and from both sides, as I've stated two or three times so far in this thread, is nationalist drivel.

i. Britain would not join the United States. Regardless of who they're better friends with, since this war would be a matter of self-preservation, doesn't it kind of seem silly when, in the days of Nuclear Submarines, Jet Fighters, and Cruise Missiles, you'd join the war when your ally is on the other side of the ocean and you're right next to the, literally, continent, at war with you? Britain did well in World War II, but in a game of complete annihilation, human weaponry has advanced too far.

ii. Britain thought quite highly of their stake in North America.
Likewise, Americans were not the sole, major player in Britain's defeat and retreat. Try learning why we owe our existence to the Dutch, and more importantly, the French.

iii. Iraq isn't a conventional war by any means. Go jump into a fire. This was the most obvious 'not-fact' of all. Also, it's been remarked by many sources that America is doing far better in the Middle-East, as far as occupation goes, than Britain ever did. Go have a jog and read the latest issue of the Economist. [A Brit-born paper]. They have a several-page article on it.

iv. Aircraft .. can't be mounted with PAC-3's .. God..

v. One bomber an hour works when you're working with a degree of mechanical difficulty SEVENTY [almost] YEARS BACK.
Try that with a B-2. Please.

vi. Actually, several countries were working on Atomics when the war broke out, or shortly beforehand. Japan, Germany, etc. Just because 'we got their first', which is pretty easy when you're an ocean away, means little.

vii. No, America is not going to form some Utopian Wonderland of mexican labor.

viii. Canada is .. Actually, that just made me hate you. Clearly, you need to be educated in civility _and_ warfare.

ix. Our computers were not fifty years ahead. In-fact, that entire line is gibberish. Are you actually saying Military Power = Computers =/= Other people's processing speeds? Christ.

x. Glossnass and Galileo.

Ow.. my brain.


posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:59 PM

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:53 PM
If it was the USA vs the Wold, we would fight a good battle but we would inevitably lose. I pray that it never happens.

new topics

<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in