USA vs. the World

page: 24
2
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BasementAddix
 

Wars aren't fought conventionally any more, anyone standing toe to toe with the USA would more that likely lose, the spread and stretching of an army and the travel effort would be the silent killer no matter how strong you are, just look at Iraq. 2 years to take down Europe, think again, it took the WHOLE of the Allied Forces to take down Germany, in 5 YEARS time, technology changes wars.....




posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EastCoastKid
 


We are very different..I think we have 6500 nukes..That means we lose everybody loses. Let's assume some kind of first strike takes out 1/6. 5500 mostly aimed at China/Russia take out most of their military industrial comples as well as population centers. Rest of the world faces nuclear winter and a slow death by radition poisoning.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EastCoastKid
 


We are very different..I think we have 6500 nukes..That means we lose everybody loses. Let's assume some kind of first strike takes out 1/6. 5500 mostly aimed at China/Russia take out most of their military industrial comples as well as population centers. Rest of the world faces nuclear winter and a slow death by radition poisoning.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
United States has already won.It has bankrupted us all.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
You seem to forget one thing. If the US was to 'take on' the world - it would be bankrupt within weeks.

Wars are not won by firepower alone but by economics, attrition rates and logistics. It is the nation(s) that can last the longest that finally wins.


And when the U.S. stops trading, who do you think will be first to fall?
With the largest strategic reserves in the world, let me tell you:
Not the United States.

Really, I see conventional warfare against North America having one major flaw:
Logistics.
Throw out all the numbers you want; if we sink ten ships, which is hardly an issue in today's world, we might have very well just killed tens of thousands of enemy combatants and tens to hundreds of vehicles.

And as for nuclear arms - I do see a use for them:
Area denial.

There is little doubt in my mind that in a World War situation with America being invaded, we would choose a line on South America to irradiate. Suddenly that area is impassible at best, and a logistical nightmare at worst.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by Iblis]



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
As long as the Vietnamese stayed out of it, America could lick all of them, especially on our own soil.

The rest of the world cannot tear America down unless they decide to tear themselves down as well. Even then we would be the fastest to recover.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
first i wonna wish a merry Xmas to you all :-)

And know i'm gonna blow the Americans bubble once and for all.

come on guys do u relally think u could stand a chance anno 2008 against even EU on its own????
If only a handfull of people are able to take out buildings in the centre of NY ???

If only a handfull of people are able to take down the economy?????


And trust me if i tell u that the average gunowner can't and won't be a match for a well trained and armed soldier. And i know u guys have huge numbers of guns at home. But... u can't beat military forces with civilians anymore. Civilian arms just arent a match for the total military firepower of a army.(I wonder what you gonna do with ur rifle or pistol when they start bombarding ur @ss with some mortars....)

oh and on that USA spending more on military then the rest of the world combined:

who cares how much u spend on the military when u guys are able to pour billions uppon billions of the people's money into projects that are just gonna give u guys a small edge on the battlefield. I love how the average American tends to believe that their billions R&D budget is good spend money.... No war i know of has ever been won by advantages in tech. Do u really think we Europeans are so dumb that we don't have a plan on how to defend ourselfs in case of a conventional war??

Ohhh well,



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I wonder what canadins would do? (yeah, I know) Like would they stay with the british or side with America??? Personally I think the world invading the USA would be the same to Canadians as invading Canada. Seriously, hockey puck at your face. It really hurts..........



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 

If they would side with the USA it wouldnt change a single thing. Northern america is just to big to defend with the massive numbers of troops available to them....

maybe i'm biased cause i'm EUer but when i look at my country and the surrounding countries (i'm belgian btw) and compare it with the states i start to comprehend why the Allies had so much trouble in getting to berlin in WW2. Our terrain up here really is a bitch to move huge numbers of troops on. The climate makes countries like my Belgium ,germany, holland
into on mudpool from autum untill spring. So all that fancy material would probably get stuck up here anyway , ready to be bombarded by far more specialized combat units u will ever have up there.



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Do u really think we Europeans are so dumb that we don't have a plan on how to defend ourselves in case of a conventional war??


The answer is, and has been for a long while:

Hide behind the United States, and last as long as you can while we attempt to fight back on your, and our, behalf.

/clap

Also, why should we be afraid of mortars? Let's ask the insurgents in Iraq how 'scary' mortars are.

And in your later post, you crow about your Belgium [not exactly a powerhouse by any means] having really scary land?
Got news, America is vastly more diverse than Belgium could ever be, simply for reasons of geographic enormity, and we wouldn't be the ones attacking anyway.

In a World War, America would be on the defensive. No one has an illusion about that.

Edit:

Since we feel like breaking out the nationalist nonsense, I'm going to bring you back to Earth.

The average age of a soldier in the Belgian armed forces is 40. Not exactly your physical prime.

Their military holds 34,000 personnel and has an annual funding less than the cost of a single aircraft carrier.

Because of your interesting bureaucracy, many of your newer vehicles use odd guns such as the CMI 90mm, who's ammunition is very rare and made by a handful of manufacturers.

Your only true fighters are out-of-date American F-16's.

And your navy is only really intended for logistical support.

---Not to say every other military in the world doesn't have issues, or to say the Belgium people have not accomplished some terrific feats in warfare during their history, but please do not crow about your country using only unsubstantiated or off-topic fact.

Though I'll agree, the efficiency of our military funding is appalling.



[edit on 25-12-2008 by Iblis]



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Odium
 


What is that you said speak up or our you indeed speaking english??


so much bashing on here !!! look the point is.. No one would win its a stupid tread tho interesting there will be no WWW3

Do you know why??? TO MANY GREEDY MEN our downfall will be slow painfull..

We are going down as a race we live on a rock going round a sun.. get with it lol

loved reading all the mindless stuff tho very interesting !



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Iblis
 

rofl

Ask any military advisor on how easy it is for troops to move in muddy Ardens ( u know the same Ardens they fought years in ww1 and ww2)
and claiming ur troops have a advantage on diverse terrain shows me more of that american confidence....

Guys u never won a war on your own. WW's , Vietnam , Cuba, Irak, Afganistan were wars never won.

the only reason u and the allied guys were able to stop WW2 ws by closing down the monetary an logistics support that came out your country (Prescot Bush anyone....?? )



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Not even going to bother addressing the off-topic poster above you.

I think he needs to get his head out of the ground. Any-who.



and claiming ur troops have a advantage on diverse terrain shows me more of that american confidence....


I never once mentioned any sort of advantage our troops would have, but if you'd likely to blindly take stabs at the air in attempts to insult me, feel free. I'm neither American by birth, nor did you apparently listen to me.

What I said was: America has ever type of terrain there is. Vast deserts, forest, mountain, plains, swamps, etc. If you think almighty Belgium has unique land features in war, you're wrong.


Guys u never won a war on your own. WW's , Vietnam , Cuba, Irak, Afganistan were wars never won.


I'll remember that Belgium did.
Or that Belgium has contributed largely to victory in any war in the past century.

Was it our job to win the World Wars? If I recall, that was Europe's business.
Vietnam? We won in relation to the reason being there.
Cuba? We never went to war with Cuba.
Iraq*? I'm pretty sure we performed "regime change" in less than a year.
Afghanistan? Pray tell, how do we win Afghanistan? By exterminating an ideology?

Your answers are either wrong, nonsensical, or impossible. Congratulations.

[quotethe only reason u and the allied guys were able to stop WW2 ws by closing down the monetary an logistics support that came out your country (Prescot Bush anyone....?? )

The only reason the Allies won World War II was by closing down the monetary and logistics support?
What?

..That made no sense.

And the term is President*

I recognize English is likely not your first language, so trying to be helpful.



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis

Originally posted by Wotan
You seem to forget one thing. If the US was to 'take on' the world - it would be bankrupt within weeks.

Wars are not won by firepower alone but by economics, attrition rates and logistics. It is the nation(s) that can last the longest that finally wins.


And when the U.S. stops trading, who do you think will be first to fall?
With the largest strategic reserves in the world, let me tell you:
Not the United States.

Really, I see conventional warfare against North America having one major flaw:
Logistics.
Throw out all the numbers you want; if we sink ten ships, which is hardly an issue in today's world, we might have very well just killed tens of thousands of enemy combatants and tens to hundreds of vehicles.

And as for nuclear arms - I do see a use for them:
Area denial.

There is little doubt in my mind that in a World War situation with America being invaded, we would choose a line on South America to irradiate. Suddenly that area is impassible at best, and a logistical nightmare at worst.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by Iblis]


The US may have the largest strategic reserves in the world, but in this scenario - US vs The World, it would be the WHOLE world that would have the largest combined strategic reserves.

You are forgetting the original scenario - the US vs The World (A stupid hypothetical scenario if you ask me). US forces would be like having a rifle Platoon size wise versus a Divison. Sorry, the the numbers are against the US.





top topics
 
2
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join