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 ,canada,britian, vs china ,russia,and nkr

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:29 AM
russian and nkr troops rush in to alaska crossing the canadian border fighting their way to the u.s.

second part

chinese troops start to push up in to the u.s. from the mexican border.

china:1million troops and armer
russia: half of what china has
nkr: 1million troops and not alot of armor

who will win ?

is the u.s. and canada prepared for such an attack militarily ?

how will britian hlep in this war ?

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by blacman2k6]

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:40 AM
err, do you have a basis for this prediction?

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:41 AM
my opinion is u.s. is not ready for such an attack the liberals weaked the military too much and canada is prepared but its doesnt have a heavy weight military like the u.s. becuz canadian liberals weaked their military its like they allowed it to wither away over the years

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:43 AM
First China would have to get all of that man power and armor to Mexico, which they don't have the navy to do it, not to mention our subs and airforce would have a field day. Plus Alaska is not what I'd call tank country so it would be pretty hard to move armor rapidly. The Brit Navy would most likely blockade the Med and the Northren Russian ports, until we could open a 2nd front in Eastren Europe against Russia. Russia most likely would not send there armor to East because, Poland and the Ukraine are a tankers dream, and they would need it to check US and UK armor forces from a Blitz on Moscow.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:48 AM

theres alot more if u dont beleive me you can research on this yourselvs people

A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America’s Heart
Joel M. Skousen
March 25, 1999

In November 1997, President Clinton signed a top-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to abandon the time-honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning."
Ironically, this was done in the name of "increased deterrence." Every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background.

The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the heels of Clinton’s demand to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of the START II disarmament treaty. This pact has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma.

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn’t comply, since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Decision Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn’t be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads.

According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (November/December 1997 issue), "the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union."

Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin in every argument pointing toward the relaxation of Western vigilance and accelerated disarmament. Indeed, it is the driving argument that is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders, and the American people.

Almost everyone is buying it -- even most conservatives who should know better. However, the most savvy Soviet-watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called "collapse" was engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to assist Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states.

But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to modernize and deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at taking down the U.S. military in one huge, decapitating nuclear strike.

Contrast this with the Clinton administration’s response. Incredibly, while still paying lip service to nuclear deterrence, Assistant Secretary of Defense Edward L. Warner III went before the Congress on March 31, 1998, and bragged about the litany of unilateral disarmament this administration has forced upon the U.S. military:

Warner noted the "success" the Clinton administration has had in recent years, which has:

Eliminated our entire inventory of ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles).

Removed all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases.

Removed our strategic bombers from alert.

Stood down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I.

Terminated the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile small ICBM programs.

Terminated the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile.
In January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further steps which included:

Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers.

Canceling the entire small ICBM program.

Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (submarine-launched missile) warheads.

Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles.

Stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles (our biggest MIRV-warhead ICBM).
"As a result of these significant changes, the U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 percent," Warner enthused.

All of this has been done without any meaningful disarmament by the Russians.

The Clinton administration would counter this charge by citing the "successful" dismantling of 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, and the destruction of their 252 ICBMs and related silos -- all paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds to the tune of $300 million per year. But the real story is otherwise.

Yes, Americans paid for the dismantling of these systems -- the oldest and most out-of-date in the Soviet inventory. They were scheduled for replacement anyway, so the U.S. taxpayer ended up saving the Russians over a billion dollars, allowing them to use this and other Western aid to develop and build new systems, coming on line right now. But that isn’t all.

What the administration doesn’t say is that they allowed the Russians to reclaim all the nuclear warheads, and paid them to recycle the usable material into new, updated warheads. We didn’t diminish the threat at all. We only helped them to transform it into something more dangerous.

Thus, the Russians still maintain a more than 3-to-1 advantage over the United States in both throw-weight and nuclear delivery vehicles. That disparity is widening dramatically with the Clinton administration’s unilateral disarmament while at the same time encouraging the Russians to proceed not only with the deployment of 500 new Topol-M missiles (which are mobile-launched and therefore difficult to target), but to put three MIRVed warheads on each missile instead of the treaty limit of one warhead -- for a total deployment of 1,500 warheads.

Not counting the presumed minimum 4,000 to 6,000 warheads in the current Russian inventory, these 1,500 new warheads would overwhelm a measly 200-interceptor ABM system in North Dakota -- which the Clinton administration is insisting should NOT be deployed before 2005. I wonder why?

With our 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs scheduled to be decommissioned in 2003, that gives the Russians or Chinese a wide-open window for attack, should they choose to exercise their first-strike, nuclear-decapitation option.

So much for the "new realism" of the Clinton disarmament team and their assertion that Russia poses no threat. Judging strictly by public data from establishment sources (which is always understated due to Moscow’s heavy shroud of secrecy) the Russian threat is much greater than it ever was, both in quantity and quality of strategic nuclear forces. This is thanks, in part, to ongoing technology transfers by IBM and other defense contractors with the knowing participation and encouragement of this administration.

Now let’s take a close look at this presumed "increased deterrence" the Clinton Department of Defense is promising. The administration claims its brand of deterrence is still based on the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) concept -- a truly appropriate acronym.

This is the presumption that, since both sides have an overwhelming capability to destroy each other, that no sane leadership would engage in nuclear war. Let’s examine this closely. MAD could only stand as a viable assumption if:

Both sides had sufficient weapons and delivery vehicles to inflict total devastation.

Neither side had an effective anti-ballistic-missile system.

Neither side had electronic jamming capability on its incoming ICBMs.

Neither side had hardened shelters protecting its population and leadership.
These assumptions clearly do not exist today:

First, we barely have enough nuclear warheads to take out the Russian arsenal as presently constituted if we used them all at once (which no sane military commander could afford to do, leaving him with no reserves). Russia, on the other hand, has enough to devastate our entire strategic forces and still retain 60 percent of her weapons in reserve, for a prolonged conflict.

Second, we have no ABM system to protect against ICBMs at all. Our dumbed-down and slowed-down Patriots are theater weapons (built to conform to the flawed ABM Treaty) and can barely catch slow, low-flying Scud missiles, let alone ICBMs that coming screaming in from space at 6 to 12 kilometers per second. The Russians have (in violation of the same ABM Treaty) a nationwide system of ABMs tied to phased-array radars and satellite guidance systems.

Third, we have no electronic jamming on our missiles to help them penetrate the Russian ABM system, and the Russians claim their newest Topol-M missiles do have such a capability. Whether or not this claim is a bluff is immaterial. The fact is, they are building new, high-tech missiles and our technology is 10 years old and stagnant. We are not developing or building anything new. This aspect can only worsen as time goes on.

Fourth, our civilian population is totally unprotected, while a large portion of the Russian cities have public fallout shelter facilities. New bunkers are being constructed for the Russian leadership despite the economic hardships the people suffer. This should tell us something about Russian leadership intentions.

Is this Mutually Assured Destruction? Hardly. It equates to United States Assured Destruction! In every category of deterrence, we are disarming and stagnant, and the Russians are building and deploying. There is, in fact, only one type of deterrence that is capable of somewhat balancing the scales: the nuclear response doctrine of Launch on Warning.

Launch on Warning takes advantage of the fact that long-range ballistic missiles take time to arrive on target -- up to 25 minutes, depending on where the missiles are fired from. If the Russians were to launch a first strike, our satellites would detect and confirm that launch within seconds. In a Launch on Warning doctrine, our missiles (if on alert status) could be launched before the Russian or Chinese missiles hit our silos. There is also time to retarget our missiles so that they are not wasted on Russian silos that are now empty.

Thus, one of the great advantages for a Launch on Warning doctrine is that it allows the nation that launches second to have an advantage over the nation that launches first. The one to launch first wastes a certain number of its missiles on our silos that are now empty. By contrast, our missiles (utilizing real-time targeting data from satellites) strike targets that are still viable.

Now that is deterrence -- a deterrence that we presently do not have due to PDD-60.

Clinton national security aide Robert Bell proudly proclaimed to a group of disarmament advocates, "In this PDD, we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on Launch on Warning -- to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

This is patently preposterous. Respond with what?

We have no mobile missiles to avoid being targeted. We have already unilaterally agreed to keep over half of our ballistic missile submarines in port at any one time, so they can easily be targeted. After all, we don’t want our Russian "allies" to feel insecure!

All of our Navy and Air Force strategic forces are incapable of withstanding a nuclear strike. Even the remaining Trident subs on patrol would be unable to respond when communication links and satellites are downed in a first strike.

PDD-60 removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs cannot fire without direct communication with the president. Those vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first strike. When you tell the Russians we are going to absorb a first strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything necessary to make sure we cannot respond.

This is not deterrence. This is suicide.

Did you know?

The Russians are building tremendous new nuclear/biological and chemical weapons systems--all with the assistance of US technology transfers. They are deploying on average, 3 new Topol-M 6th generation ballistic missiles per month. We built our last MX over 10 years ago, and are disarming unilaterally. Further, the Russian are building huge underground nuclear bunkers and weapons production facilities in the Ural Mountains, clearly intended to function during a nuclear war. The US intelligence community (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) knows this and are actively covering for the Russians, so the American people won't become alarmed.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been supplying the Chinese with high technology weapons systems for years, knowing that they, in turn, are supplying other enemies (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea) as well. Both Russia and China continue to protest against any US anti-ballistic missile system, even though such systems are purely defensive. It doesn't take a genius to understand that ABM systems only threaten someone who intends to launch ballistic missiles someday.

President Clinton directed our military to absorb a nuclear first strike rather than launch on warning (our only true deterrent to a first strike) and to prepare to retaliate afterward. That first strike will take down all command and control, all bombers (since none are on alert), most missiles, and all satellite and submarine communications.

According to the House Armed Services Committee, the following reductions have taken place during the Clinton Administration: Strategic and General Purpose Forces from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers have gone from 220 to 56. B-1 Bombers from 90 to 60; Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft from 36 to 0; and Army Divisions (1990 to 1997) have gone from 18 Active down to 10. Reserve divisions have gone from 10 to 8. Army Brigades (1990 to 1997) have declined from 8 Active to 3 and Reserve brigades have gone down from 27 to 18.

and theres more stuff about how theirs going to be a backlash agianst the u.s.

before you guys bag on me you should research these facts, i have a feeling no one likes my sources

and people its all true true true
i give this attack ten years

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:51 AM
ok so they will have trouble getting their stuff here , lets change this alittle bit. what will happen if china and russia launched powerful nuclear strikes agianst the u.s. and its bases in asia and europe what will happen


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:53 AM
Why would Russia and China attack North America? And why would they team up with North Korea? Russia isn't really a communist country anymore as far as i know and China is slowly becoming more capitalistic and they do a lot of business with North America.

But yeah i know this is just some hypothetical scenario, but I really just don't see it happening. For one, it would be very hard to supply a 1 million man army i'd think. If you can't get your supplies to them, then your army is pretty useless. US subs would no doubt sink any Chinese ships trying to supply there army. Though if we were to go strictly by numbers and statistics I think China, Russia and NK could win just by the amount of soldiers.

But again. I don't see anything like that ever happening. So I don't think we'd have to worry.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 03:04 AM
Us Nuculer Subs would Luanch relatory stirkes, Ground base nukes are nice but subs are a pose a threat that is hard to counter.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:19 PM
I just imagine them coming down from alaska into canada, not running into anyone for a few days, getting bored and turning back...

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:02 PM
When people ask, why would Russia attack the United States!? Well, ask Germany why it attacked most of Europe and Russia. To become the undisputed world power that will last centuries, and to reclaim former glory.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 04:38 PM
Lol Canada!!!!!!! LOL/ on a serious note if something of this magnitude was to happen there would be alot more countrys in the warat that Equals-WWIII!!!!!!!!!

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 06:51 PM
Dumbnut probably doesn't realise his sited article is almost SIX YEARS OLD!

and ROFL at the bored and turn back.. oh, that's sticking.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 06:58 PM
Russia having enough trouble with the chechans.Plus America is flooding russia with business.China`s to far away to deploy quickly without a nuc shoved up there arse.And its been so long since north Koreans left there country they`d probably get lost and invade New Zeland.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:27 PM
This scenario will never happen at all, at least for China. There are no bases to support such a supposition!

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:11 PM
oh come on i know somthing like this will happen, the u.s. is getting weaker everyday its disarming its nukes, the navy and airforce are being striped of their nukes and nukes based here in the u.s. are being disarmed. the mx missle the missle in land bases in u.s. are being disarmed. the u.s. is strecthed militarily around the world, we have a bogus policy called pdd-60. the point is there are alot of people who would take advantage of our situation, this will happen when all our nukes are gone and when liberal destroys military. i know russia and china would take advantage of our situation.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:17 PM
alot of people hate us, becuz of what we do around the world our policies and interventions.

an example of interventions: china and tawian, china dont want us messin with tawain givin the stuff to fight prc.

this is why i know there would be a big backlash against the u.s. and its not prepared for it becuz the liberals weaken us

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:24 PM
First off why on earth would anyone try to invade the US? America has used most of their resources and it's the invader's funeral. If they're smart they'll nuke America from across a nice big ocean.

Next I think your teams need a bit of an update, the Cold War is over.

Based upon modern alliances and political trends the teams would look more like this:

USA, EU, Russia and Canada against umm North Korea

You really think China's going to care? the more wars the US has the more the Americans rely on Chinese imports for domestic goods.

Instant end of the world is a very 20th century idea, now we will see more long, protracted unconventional wars. Why spend the resources to vaporize someone when you can shoot them in the gut and let them bleed to death for a millionth of the cost?


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:52 PM

and its not prepared for it becuz the liberals weaken us

lol yeah you know the infomation thats being posted is going to be fair and well balanced when you read that in the thread

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:24 PM
America is not getting weaker everyday, in fact it is getting stronger. And of course others are getting stronger too.
The problem with America is that IT CAN NOT STAND OTHERS GETTING STRONGER.
America will costs anything to stand on top, including invasion to other countries, 3rd world countries, such as Middle Easts. War is the only way for America to survive in order to be no.1.

Everybody knows since World War II, no country invade others except America.

I just wander how American live by killing others, and surprisingly lots of American know nothing about this, they thought it is an act of self-defense.
Sending troops and heavy arms to other continent is an act of self defense? Do you see how bad the government brainwashed its' people?

How many people actually see those who live next to Jewish are having a bad life? mmmmm bad luck?

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:57 AM
I don't know that Canada would be on our side. You might as well put France over there too.... but at least we have those Aussies..

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in