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.A could take over the world if they wanted to. Could they???

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Not even close. China would collapse the US economy and squash them like a bug militarily if they even so much as rattled a sabre in the wrong direction.

The US economy is in such a precarious position, that there are several options to crash it VERY quickly

1) China immediately recalls all outstanding loans
2) China, EU, and Saudi Arabia each dump the estimated $1 TRILLION (with a "T") they EACH hold onto the market, crashing the perceived value of the US dollar
3) OPEC decide to price oil in Euros instead of dollars at the same time as Saudi Arabia dumps their $1 trillion.
4) Banks stop lending to everyone. No loans, period. This is what happened in 1929 (in reality, they all recalled all their loans) and it can happen again.

All of these economic disasters would wipe out America's ability to wage war, short of a nuclear missile attack.
edit on 11-11-2010 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
They could probably take a good chunk of the world now if they wanted, certainly the whole of the Americas and Africa relatively easy. It would depend on the ammount of time the other powers had to remilitarise. If given around 10 years there would be several powerful countries. Looking at how quickly Germany turned itself from basically a broke nation to having one of the most powerful armies on the planet, you'd have to say that the likes of China could become powerful, and a combined European superpower could certainly challenge the US. The people shouting about the US being terrorists could do well to remember that the US could probably have taken over the world after WW2, being the only nation with nuclear weapons, but didn't.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Here Here



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


It would also collapse their own economies, so the US wouldn't be 'squashed like a bug'. Don't be so naive, even if the US economy collapsed, Americans would rush to defend their homeland if under threat.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ
 


You would be able to defend a homeland that would be bankrupt and no one would be interested in anyway. this is a wakeup call... why defend an empty cupboard



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Farnet
 


Bankrupt for how long exactly? Every nation would be able to pick itself back up, I certainly hope that if I had to I would defend my country



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ
 


Thats the thing, the rest of the world isn't really interested in the downfall of the USA, we have our own lives to deal with. in the grand scheme of things you will never be invaded.... why would you be?... the issue you have is being able to survive in the circumstances that a lot of countries have been doing for for a long time,

Your debt is with China, what are you going to do with that? invade them? firstly... being in debt who's going to pay for it... secondly who will support you....? Oh you could launch nukes, but that would destroy everyone and everything, nuke are the single biggest waste of time... you need them but will never use them.

This is the first time the economy is going to be the war that will be dealt... and this will be more painful than you can imagine



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Farnet
 


I'm Irish, not American, but I don't just dismiss the US, they are still the most powerful country by a good bit, and I can't see them being dislodged by any other country for the foreseeable future. China and India will have their own problems to deal with as they continue to develop, with the massive social change that will come and their ever increasing populations. Russia has the opposite problem with projected population decline. The EU could go either way, the major countries are declining in population, but the admittance of more nations could solve that, but the fact remains that we're still some way off a European superstate, too many states need/want to keep their independence. The US is still a magnet for immigrants, and still has the most powerful military and some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The next 50 years will be interesting, but I don't think the US will decline as dramatically as some on here like to fantasize about. Other nations becoming more powerful may take it back from being a lone superpower state, but the competition will drive all countries on to improve, and the US look reasonable placed face it. At the moment it looks like China will be the next power, but it could all change.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ
 


I can't argue with you for anything there, I do think though that China is a fast growing superpower with understated financial manipulation of the world market including their own, to make sure that the USA and Europe use the workforce for cheap products.

The point of this thread though is about the USA taking over the world.... at this current state of affairs I think it should be... 'When China DECIDES to command the world market' that is way more powerful than military might and you get taxed on it as well.....



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Hello, I don't post much as I prefer to just have a quiet chuckle at "the end is near threads". However; I'd like to pitch my two cents in. In a word, no. This is why.

First. Any kind of world domination campaign would have to have popular support, TPTB would have to get the frenzied support of the U.S. populace (post 9/11). Unfortunately the general population of sheeple (such as I) have a short attention span

Second. TBTB would have to have full support of the entire DOD, not just the command structure, but NCOs and enlisted personal. You can't execute a campaign with your cannon fodder deserting.

Third. The politicians cannot have any say about the manner of the way ops are conducted. The armed forces original intent was to kill people and break things. Enough said.

Lets say you've got these three lined up, our military would have to have such a huge build up there would be no element of surprise, So, "They" would build up also. I believe our technology would dominate on the battlefield. Field armies would be decimated, Governments would surrender, some would become puppet states on the outset. But governments giving in to our will and organized military formations being destroyed are not what it takes to maintain control of a sovereign nation You need the support of the conquered populace. (Iraq & Afghanistan) Maybe if we took lessons from Alexander The Great, but I still think not,

We could really mess things up though :-)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Konklar
 


good point and yes you could do a lot of damage.

Hypothetically though, basing it on the title of the thread, without the use of nukes, your military would be spread rather thin, I'd imagine you'd have to split your forces to attack Europe and Asia in the first instance, that would leave you so weak at home I think Canada would just jump accross the border and go TADA... surprise.... the Canadian empire comes into being.....

Thinking about it though, even if you just attacked china for example, those guys may not have the technology (yet), to compete, but they damn well have the expertise, practically all of the modern warfares tactical and strategic techniques derive from ancient chinese warfare. Also as with Japan in the WWII, don't dismiss an enemy in size (physical or population).

Lets put it this way, if Europe unified and decided to take a pop at China, I think we'd get our arses handed to us.... In a BIG way..

This would be quite an interesting little project for someone to do, basing the warfare on size, techonlogy and logistics (only simplistically, ignoring alliances, government, funds, and simple things like POWs). Surely someone has done this already?



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I thought we already did to some extent. Not with bullets and bombs, but with burgers, blue jeans, and Coca-Cola. As long as we're compatible enough with everybody else culturally and economically - it's all hunky-dory. (And this actually proves true for Russia and China. Even with their differences, they all want the same. The fact that we share a common internet as much as we do makes this obvious.) What would be the point of military warfare? If there's a battle being waged among the powerful countries, it's occurring in the marketplace.

I guess it's the places in the world that have worthwhile resources and are culturally incompatible for some reason or another where the bullets and bombs approach comes in. (But also likely is that it keeps churn going in the arms and various black market economies, which is very profitable for some greedy b******s we'd all be better off without.)

And as already mentioned, too big an empire isn't without problems though. The Romans were successful to a point, weren't they? And look how they turned out.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
We can see that some americans have their confidence from the "irak war" but let´s stay in this universe..
Countries like irak and afganistan are like third world countries when it comes to military power and technology..
Let´s imagine an extreme example..Sweden..sweden is a very..very..very small country, they could maby bring to front..say..350 fighter jets, 100 navy vessels, 15 subs, 500 tanks, 400000 soldiers.. all of this is not much compared to usa..but these..350 fighter jets, 100 navy vessels, 15 subs, 500 tanks, 400000 soldiers are all state of art in technology and military education, morality..and these gyus are actually going to shoot back at you..
So when learning that sweden is only a small country in Europe with very limited defence capability..let´s then imagine the combined forces of europe instead..you wouldn´t stand a chance and this is not wishual thinking, this are logical facts..
So let´s stop with this childish play and ..have a beer instead and be friends for the rest of time and focus on the important things in life..



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OddTimeSignature
 



Hmmmm....and the last time the Swedes were in an actual war? How long ago was that? I mean, besides the few that fought with the SS during WW2???

The US has a very combat experienced military right now, probably the most. That's what people seem to be forgetting.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by signal2noise
 


Well i think it was sometime between 1800 and 1815 when sweden lost..finland, norway, denmark, a part of russia, a part of germany..so No the swedes don´t have a clue how to make war..but my point was that you can´t compare for example irak with countries of EU..
Ofcourse us have the power and capability to invade ex, sweden..but to a much higher price than ex irak..and sweden alone is probobly one of the weakest military nations in EU..so no us would never be able to take over europe, that´s make no sense..



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Why do cornballs continuously mention the USA's debt?
Who the hell is going to make us pay the debt?
Seriously?

I honestly want to know.

In Mono E Mono, no army could compete with the USA in war, just plain and simple.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by signal2noise
reply to post by OddTimeSignature
 



Hmmmm....and the last time the Swedes were in an actual war? How long ago was that? I mean, besides the few that fought with the SS during WW2???

The US has a very combat experienced military right now, probably the most. That's what people seem to be forgetting.


Rofl, Explain when they bombed a hospital in the Gulf war (Ill find the source if you like)
Explain why the SEALs all got shot down in the desert on a rescue mission
Explain why the SEALs recently killed a girl who they were rescusing due to "Run n gun" attitude
Explain why 10000 american troops surrendered to the ITALIANS in ww2
Explain why they were defeated by a tiny and remote country.

The list goes on, I think you should read my previous post; Im not hating on America (In fact i know someone who fought in Vietnam, and Ironicaly he thinks the British Army is better) But Seriously, It hasnt got a godlike millitary; Far from it.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I know some very intelligent military buffs that would heartily disagree with the assertion that we could take over the world.

Russia and China would make sure that didn't go too well for us. Not to mention all of the nuclear weapons and ICBMs, there is no way we could knock them all out without taking serious casualties.

American exceptionalism is a bit of a cultural illusion.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
If conscription happened there would be alot of people in the army.


Not as many as you think.

People wouldn't tolerate that crap these days unless the US was invaded. There would be fierce resistance if they brought that back to fight for corporate interests overseas.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
USA could take over the world? Militarily No.

The USA has technological superiority over all other individual nations. It has numerical superiority over most. One on one there is no other country that the USA could not overrun quickly.

However, you would not get far into the great world conquering campaign before the resource drain of garrisoning all those unruly conquered nations took its toll. No single nation can conquer the world. NATO is struggling to control a backwater nation in central asia full of rifle wielding peasants.

Of course this problem is moot if it was the USA waging an extermination campaign on the rest of the world. In that case nuclear armageddon would occur.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join