Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
10
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I can't believe anyone would even think the U.S. could take over the world. Did you ever hear of mutually assured destruction? It doesn't matter how many nukes you have, it just takes 1 or 2 to devastate a countries communication system and infrastructure of a country. Countries who have nukes would release a barrage of nukes on the U.S.. As far as I know, the U.S. doesn't have technology that can shoot down multiple launches of nukes. If they do, they surely don't have a 100 percent kill capability. This doesn't account for missile decoys that would be launched with the real nukes. It's just plain crazy to even think any country, no matter how advanced their technology is, could achieve such a ridiculous thought. We're not talking just 1 megaton nukes here! There wouldn't be anyone left on earth to rule the world! Are you sure you're not related to Dr. Strangelove?




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
See, you are all getting it wrong. If you want to take over the world, you can't use nukes at all. Otherwise, you are just going to be king of the cinder. In that case, you still lose.

To take over something, there has to be something left to claim. You can go back and forth all day about ICBMs and Mutually Assured Destruction but you are missing the point. Don't simply jump to the engame and play the nuke card. There have been hundreds of battles and minor skirmishes since the 1940's that have been resolved without them.

There is a vast difference between taking over the world and destroying it. And most of you seem to be thinking that the two are somehow connected.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This is like a bad Pinky and the Brain episode. Or maybe a good one, depending on your perspective.

But one thing the Brain never considered was that after you conquer everything and plant your flag, then you make them pay taxes or tribute. And some countries just don't have anything to make it worthwhile. So, you would end up feeding them and bankrupting yourself after destroying their infrastructure or flipping them off and letting them starve.


And then there is France....cool places to visit there, but it is infested with French people.


Who wants that?

no one my friends....no one.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
An easy way for the states to take over the world would be to threatened them into giving you there resources or else you just blow them all up to stone age no need to leave the troops in there country. Let them deal with there own problems but you just want a piece of the pie. But then, we all know this is impossible as Russia as enough nukes to blow the whole world up lol and other countries also have some nukes also. Still you can probably control the rest of the world if you would want to.
edit on 30-12-2010 by FreeStanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
We in the U.S.A. are letting the World take over us. Greedy politicians are opening the doors and are passing legislation to further open the door and weaken our country for the take over. Voting blind on bills they have not read and passing more stimulus to stimulate the stimulus. Are they spending the U.S.A. into oblivion while behind the scenes lining their pockets thanks to lobbyist and unseen secret contributors? Can you say Socialism and Communism this is what is being sprinkled all over our country while many are still asleep. Everyday you see more controls over your life and that is what it is all about controlling every aspect of your life. This is remote control Roboticism at its best, do as I say because we the controllers control the remote. ^Y^
edit on 30-12-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
The US can barely hold down cities in Iraq.. what makes you think they can dominate every single country?
Now if you're talking about nukes...diff story.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by MurrayTORONTO]


That's just it . . . nukes and/or all-out full-scale combat without consideration for civilian casualties; fortunately for the world the USA has a conscience and no ambition to take over the world even though it is completely possible if no rules applied.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by amari
We in the U.S.A. are letting the World take over us. Greedy politicians are opening the doors and are passing legislation to further open the door and weaken our country for the take over. Voting blind on bills they have not read and passing more stimulus to stimulate the stimulus. Are they spending the U.S.A. into oblivion while behind the scenes lining their pockets thanks to lobbyist and unseen secret contributors? Can you say Socialism and Communism this is what is being sprinkled all over our country while many are still asleep. Everyday you see more controls over your life and that is what it is all about controlling every aspect of your life. This is remote control Roboticism at its best, do as I say because we the controllers control the remote. ^Y^
edit on 30-12-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)


Wow. I've seen this many times before, where common Americans assume government control over their lives is communism.

Totalitarianism is a degree of government, not a type. It has nothing to do with communism or capitalism. To believe otherwise is to fall for the propaganda, to think something other than the reality of the situation.

You know what's going on in the US right now? It's not communism. It's called fascism. The US government was couped in 2001 by a neo-con government working only for the corporate elite, and 9/11 was an engineered event (just like when the Nazis blamed terrorists for burning down the Reichstag). The US is in the hands of the corporations. It could not get any further to the right than communism (which is extreme left).



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


You think America is all fine and dandy?Well it isn't America in My opinion is the most blood thirsty country out there. Over in Iraq only about 500 of our troops died over 100,000 thousand of there civilians died.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
The USA can stop like 5,000 nukes using just the patriot missile system. If all of them were used than i believe only 10 or 15 would get through and we have our own nukes.... No we couldnt take the world an we are bloodthirsty but please not all americans think everything about life is violence. I for one just wanna take my girl on dates feel the rush of spending money and living. It seems what the government does is all our fault we can not overthrow the government no matter what we do. sure we have semi auto weapons but none that stop tanks or missiles or bombs. So therefore why would you nuke us that would just earn us sympathy from the world and any country without nukes will most likely be overrun by small armies due to no us military aid.
If the choice was mine than i would pay our debt form a military alliance with russia and china. Than focus on making the US prosper. Due to hackers making bad presidents have tons of votes we cant do # about it.

All im asking is dont blame every us citizen for what their government does thats like me saying Russia is weak because their government is lazy.
Not true though.

Endwar is a nice game but the wmds are unrealistic. a nuke would wipe out a city not a part of it. If there is ever a third world war i hope im not alive because nukes will be used and the aftereffects will send humanity towards extinction.
edit on 4-1-2011 by trentyh because: mispelling



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by trentyh
 


Hey, I'm not trying to be over critical, but "we can take out 5,000 ballistic missiles with the Patriot Missile System" is just unrealistic. Patriot is an older system, and it was better than nothing against surface to surface missiles like SCUD missiles in the Gulf War, but it was by no means zero fail.
The current missile defense system technology is improving, but its still in the testing and research phases as far as I understand. It has a far harder job too. Ballistic Missiles are called Ballistic because they return to target with gravity. They get shot into near space, and the warheads free fall to target. Most of them are MIRV systems with several different warheads each going to a different target. For every missile that makes it to space, they now have a half dozen warheads they have to shoot down. This happens in a matter of minutes from a long way off. The analogy is shooting a bullet with a bullet from a hundred miles away while you are aiming from underwater. Only one out of the battery fired actually has to make it, and its going to be a crappy day.
Mutually assured destruction is a diplomatic pitfall, as it can only be justified against an adversary that has the means to retaliate in kind. Meaning, if the Russians kicked off a war with the US, the the US could justify a preemptive strike in kind as Russia could do the same at any time. They really can't substantiate such policy with a "rouge state" such as North Korea, as if they ever fired a missile at the US it would likely be their ONLY missile. We need missile defense systems to negate their nuclear retaliation threat if we ever get involved with another conventional arms campaign with them.
Anyways, my two cents.
Comm



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by commdogg
 


keep forgetting the name of the more recent anti missile defenses sorry. They are still in testing? We have several past ones that we are reluctant to destroy if we will ever need them. The one thing thats gonna kill the US is its debt go to www.usdebtclock.org... Thats what will kill us if we can not stop spending money if that will ever happen i am moving to Canada or Europe.
What gets me is with two communist has been countries and no democratic super power to back it up how is NATO even powerful enough to contend with that? I mean EU can not due a retaliation nuclear strike. How is anyone else? Without the USA this world will be a bleak place. Sure were criminals but when it comes down to it if Russia and China formed a alliance who would you look to, to be the major player on your team fully equipped with nukes and technology. If the US doesn't survive have fun fighting China and Russia.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
well see if we wanted to take the world over like that sure but we don't even then, we don't give info to the public about weapons until that weapon is outdated look at some of the plains we are just now getting rid of. we have opened to the public that we have laser weapons just think what we have hiding.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by trentyh
The USA can stop like 5,000 nukes using just the patriot missile system. If all of them were used than i believe only 10 or 15 would get through and we have our own nukes....


Complete BS. The Patriot system has been combat proven to have, at best, a 3% success rate at shooting down Iraqi Scuds. Their Scud missiles were basically the next step up after V2 Nazi missile technology, and were primitive ballistic missiles.

Secondly, how can a patriot missile even target an ICBM when the ICBM is fired from within another country, well out of range of PAC-II or PAC-III systems? SAM missile systems have limited range because they are designed to down enemy aircraft, not missiles which are exponentially harder to intercept.

Sure, the US has its THAAD system, but at best it is just a theater SAM system (which, by the way, doesn't even come close to Russian theater SAMs like the S-400 or S-500). There is no way that this system would be in range to down any Russian or Chinese state launched missiles. Giving the Americans the best scenario here is that MAYBE they might be able to intercept an SLBM from a ballistic sub if they happen to be close by, but that would mean little in the bigger picture.

And do you even understand how modern ICBMs work? They launch, usually within the territory of their operator's country, and enter space. Once in space, missile breaks apart and the nuclear MIRV warheads separate and re-enter our atmosphere (Newer Russian ICBMs can carry 10 MIRVs each). These MIRVs independently seek out their specific targets while falling from space at speeds that go far beyond any interceptor missile technology. On top of that, I doubt any missile or laser will penetrate the heat shield generated from orbital re-entry.


So therefore why would you nuke us that would just earn us sympathy from the world and any country without nukes will most likely be overrun by small armies due to no us military aid.


Why would anyone nuke the US? Because the US probably nuked them first.

And you're wrong, like usual. Canada doesn't have nukes, nobody is touching us. Nobody screws with Japan or Australia. Smaller powers develop nuclear weapons because they know that aggressive and openly hostile empires like the US will invade them otherwise.


If the choice was mine than i would pay our debt form a military alliance with russia and china. Than focus on making the US prosper. Due to hackers making bad presidents have tons of votes we cant do # about it.


You're living in a delusional fantasy if you think the US should or would strike a military alliance with its primary rivals, or if they would even consider the same. In order to form a military alliance with another power, you need a common threat. What do you think is the top real threats to the US? Russia and China. Russia's top threats are the US and China. China's top threats are Russia and the US.

You're blaming hackers for your presidents? You're presidential campaigns are a popularity contest where the top candidates receive an unlimited amount of funding to run campaigns to give the American sheeple the illusion that you live in a democracy.


All im asking is dont blame every us citizen for what their government does thats like me saying Russia is weak because their government is lazy.
Not true though.


No actually that isn't a good analogy. Blaming every American for their government is the point; they tout democracy, they spread democracy around the world through bloodshed and bombs, and their own country is not democratic because the American people are designed to be unable to engage in intelligent thought, which represents a threat to their clearly fascist government composed of the elite that clearly dictates everything.


Endwar is a nice game but the wmds are unrealistic. a nuke would wipe out a city not a part of it. If there is ever a third world war i hope im not alive because nukes will be used and the aftereffects will send humanity towards extinction.


Endwar is just another stupid Tom Clancy propaganda tool. Tom Clancy has stated many times that he thinks the US is superior to everyone else and foreign military forces are all junk. His games and stories are a joke, and he is a bad reference for anything to do with realistic military discussion.


Thats what will kill us if we can not stop spending money if that will ever happen i am moving to Canada or Europe.


We already have too many morons here. You think Canada is some safehouse to run to when you can't handle your own fascist government? You come here and you'll either be shipped right back only to be manhandled by your own government or you'll live your life out here among Canadians, and we really don't care much for US warmongers.


I mean EU can not due a retaliation nuclear strike.


I don't know what world you live in, but in my world the EU most certainly does have a nuclear strike option. Just because they don't have thousands of missiles doesn't mean the ones that they do have can't work.


Without the USA this world will be a bleak place.


Your posts are extremely hard to read. I must admit, your jumbled and highly uneducated sense of military force and global politics is so piss-poor that I can barely even think of where to start. I would not be surprised if you're actually paid to post this stuff intentionally... Didn't you once say that you are aspiring to be a military tactician in the US forces? Scary, in my opinion
edit on 9-1-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-1-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: I really do try to hold back on the personal comments, honest!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zombiesC4
reply to post by infolurker
 


You think America is all fine and dandy?Well it isn't America in My opinion is the most blood thirsty country out there. Over in Iraq only about 500 of our troops died over 100,000 thousand of there civilians died.

Nice point!!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zombiesC4
reply to post by infolurker
 


You think America is all fine and dandy?Well it isn't America in My opinion is the most blood thirsty country out there. Over in Iraq only about 500 of our troops died over 100,000 thousand of there civilians died.


How many of them deaths, tragic as they are, were killed by the US military, and how many are the result of insurgency?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ
 
All of them are from military.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Why take over the world? You'll only get everyone's share of problems in the end. Keep in mind, our country hasn't won a war since WWII. The US would need technology far beyond the reaches of anyone else for us to even think about world domination.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Well, once you guys finish taking over Iraq and Afghanistan (and it's taken quite a while, if I may say), there's only 192 more countries to go...

No chance. The reality is we would all be reduced to charcoal from you WMD hording terrorists.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by shamus78
 


That's exactly right. Following this thought, why hasn't anyone taken the USA to task over their hegemonic tendencies , particularly in light of their internal political and social strife, not to mention their economic and fiscal instability? Why are they still in a position of influence? When will they be deemed a threat? They certainly make this call on a lot of other nations but somehow the mirror never reflects on them. Anyone else asking these questions, even in the darkest recesses of the mind? I know it's dangerous to let such things rise to the surface.

*wonders who is knocking at the door at this hour* "Oh, hello Mr CIA man." lol



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
well, maybe, but i doubt they could garrison all, and the guerrilla war would be so big that in the end they would fall.






top topics



 
10
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join