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.

 

USA can take on the rest of the world???

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
i'm not making this thread to hate on americans, because i really don't! But i found a quote really ignorant and arrogant, so i've decided to put it up for debate along with some figures for you to make up your own mind.


War is a joke.
The United States can win a war with the entire rest of the world.
One blast of the Tesla Particle Beam weapon and an entire army is destroyed. It makes a nuke look like a kids toy.
The 1908 Tunguska explosion, believe it.

Just think why we (U.S.) can fake 9-11, take over a number of Middle Eastern countries, and do anything we want.
The other countries really do know that even all of them combined can't beat us in war.
And realisticly, we don't "need" any other country for trade to "survive".
[quote/]


i find this somewhat offensive, it's just total rubbish IMO, i don't know about yours, and i will respect it, but i really think this was an ignorant statement.

let me start with the 2nd part, is it me, or does this person take pride in 9-11 and what is going on in the middle east and takes it as a sign of power?

and the statement that america doesnt need any other countries just seems very silly, and i won't even rise to it.

but i really don't believe america can take the rest of the world on in a conventional war, maybe they could nuke the rest of the world, but would nukes be sent back in exchange? of course.

let's just compare some of the armies... (i'm only going to use 5 other countries just for the example)

USA population: 303,824,640
Chinese population: 1,330,044,544
Russian population: 140,702,096
Indian population: 1,147,995,904
UK population: 60,943,912
French population: 64,057,792

USA population available: 144,354,117
Chinese population available: 729,323,673
Russian population available: 73,239,761
Indian population available: 584,141,225
UK population available: 28,855,100
French population available: 29,026,057

USA population fit for military service: 118,600,541
Chinese population fit for military service: 609,273,077
Russian population fit for military service: 50,249,854
Indian population fit for military service: 467,795,073
UK population fit for military service: 23,738,184
French population fit for military service: 23,960,706

Americans Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,266,128
Chinese Reaching Military Age Annually: 20,470,412
Russians Reaching Military Age Annually: 1,602,673
Indians Reaching Military Age Annually: 22,229,373
British Reaching Military Age Annually: 784,520
French Reaching Military Age Annually: 783,788 (all as of 2008)

USA Active Military Personnel: 1,385,122
Chinese Active Military Personnel: 2,255,000
Russian Active Military Personnel: 1,245,000
Indian Active Military Personnel: 1,325,000
UK Active Military Personnel: 195,000
French Active Military Personnel: 225,000

USA Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500
Chinese Active Military Reserve: 800,000
Russian Active Military Reserve: 2,400,000
Indian Active Military Reserve: 1,155,000
UK Active Military Reserve: 233,860
French Active Military Reserve: 419,000

USA Active Paramilitary Units: 453,000
Chinese Active Paramilitary Units: 3,969,000
Russian Active Paramilitary Units: 359,100
Indian Active Paramilitary Units: 1,293,300
British Active Paramilitary Units: 0
French Active Paramilitary Units: 101,400

US Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920
Chinese Total Land-Based Weapons: 31,300
Russian Total Land-Based Weapons: 79,985
Indian Total Land-Based Weapons: 10,340
British Total Land-Based Weapons: 5,121
French Total Land-Based Weapons: 8,536

US tanks: 8,000 M1A1's
Chinese tanks: 100 T99 and T88's, 2,500 T96's, 500 T88's, 5,000 T59's
Russian tanks: 400 T-90's, 1400 T-80s, 1200 T-72's, 300 older tanks
these are just the ones in use, russia has 11-12 thousand
tanks not in regular use.
Indian tanks: 1,700 T-55s and vijayanta's in storage, 620 T-90's,
1,950 T-72's, 124 Arjun MBT's
British tanks: 386 challenger 2's
French tanks: 407 lecrerc's

US NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 11
Destroyers: 50
Submarines: 75
Frigates: 92
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100
Mine Warfare Craft: 28
Amphibious Craft: 38

CHINA'S NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1
Destroyers: 21
Submarines: 68
Frigates: 42
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368
Mine Warfare Craft: 39
Amphibious Craft: 121

RUSSIA's NAVY
NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 526
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,074
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1
Destroyers: 15
Submarines: 61
Frigates: 19
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 72
Mine Warfare Craft: 41
Amphibious Craft: 22

INDIA's NAVY
NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 143
Merchant Marine Strength: 501
Major Ports and Harbors: 9
Aircraft Carriers: 1
Destroyers: 8
Submarines: 18
Frigates: 16
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 43
Mine Warfare Craft: 12
Amphibious Craft: 7

i've decided to leave out the UK and France, and i've left out the details of the quality here, but i'm sure you can find that out by yourself.

US airforce: 18,169 aircraft and 4,593 heli's
China's airforce: 1,900 aircraft and 491 heli's
Russian airforce: 3,888 aircraft and 2,625 heli's
Indian airforce: 1,007 aircraft and 240 heli's
UK airforce: 1,891 aircraft and 779 heli's
French airforce: 1,023 aircraft and 892 heli's

once again i'm not mentioning detail here, you can find that out for yourself.

i'm not sure if nuke's would count, i know the more modern ones don't affect buildings but needless to say, a nuclear war would produce no winners.

here's my overall numbers.

USA men fit for war: 118,600,541
other 5 countries men fit for war: 1,175,016,894

Us tanks are completely outweighed by russia alone.

the USA's navy is by far the best in the world, but could by no means take on overybodies.

USA's airforce is superior in numbers, even against a lot of the world.

THIS IS BY NO MEANS TO BASH AMERICANS, SO PLEASE REFRAIN YOURSELF.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Dr Slim]




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I disagree, the more we stick our necks out the more rtarded we seem. All we have done would not have been possible without our debt to China and others. We are mere holograms of what america was built for and because of this we are lost in the world.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
funny the only war i'v heard of america winning was against its self.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
well, I would have agreed with you 10 years ago. for the last 10 years we have been ruining our ability to project power - by projecting it -
now if war as experience - we will desimate the average soldier.
now if war as materials - we have hollowed out our ability to mfg.
now if was as technical - we have the world in the palm of our hand
now if was as soldiers - we have lied too much - and true allegance is a stretch. so, if our hearts are not with it - coin toss



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Slim
 
Seeing as the US Navy is larger than the rest of the world's fleets COMBINED, and we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the globe 1,000 times over:

I'd say, technically this is a very accurate statement.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Please can you show me where the US navy is greater than that of the rest of the world combined? I'd be really interested...

I can understand the US navy using a rule similar to that of the Royal Navy at height of Empire.. which was the 2 power rule . i.e greater than the combined force of the next 2 largest navies, but to claim the US Navy is bigger and can take on the fleets of the whole world combined needs a little support


Thanks



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


America could not defeat the world, you think China and Russia would sit by and let themselves get blasted?
No

As soon an the US launches a nuke it will be picked up on every radar across the superpower world.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
ok so we haven't been able to defeat the Taliban in 9 years, but we can take on the entire world.

Pure propaganda noise.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by LDragonFire]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Ummm.. to state the obvious...
Surely the Yanks do realise that if they destroy the World 1000 times over with those nukes that they will lose the war just like every other living thing on the planet?
As for the Navy being as large as the combined fleets of the entire World... er.. yeah sure mate... whatever you reckon.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Slim
 


I would guess the post was written by a child. He should stick to playing Top Trumps.

So what if America has the most powerful war machine in the world. Does it really matter?

[edit on 2/6/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This quote is nothing more than good old fashioned bluffing at its best. It reminds me of a bully that says -- "I could knock you out with one punch....I just choose not to...."

Reality, however, is not the US versus the world. At least not in the beginning. Whether justified or not, we still have several strong allies.

As far as nuclear bombs go, the country -- any country -- that pulls the trigger on that this time around will surely suffer the consequences. I disagree, and continue to disagree, that countries will start setting them off like rockets. Self-preservation is a rather strong deterrent.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
This nonsense is probably from some young American kid, who has seen to much Discovery channel.

So far the US haven't proven that they can beat farmers armed with old AK-47s and other old rifles used in the first world war.

There is only one way the US can fight the whole world, and that is with nuclear weapons, But that would be suicidal. Meaning the US would never survive.

The US would have enormous problems even surviving a conventional war, with the Chines alone. China has technology to take out every satellite the US is dependent on to drift a efficient conventional war. A war with china would not be as comfortable as fighting Iraqis and Afghans.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I'd like to think that if women were to rule the world war would almost be obsolete.
The fact of the matter is that the largest doesnt always = the strongest. Kosovo had only a few hundred ground forces, if they can take down the most advanced craft at the time, the Stealth, imagine what a huge well armed army can do. In Germany we got Our asses kicked by their inferior air force/army.
Theoretically we should be able to destroy the rest of the world but theoretically doesnt cut it. Most of the fighting would end up being done on the ground, our ground. There are many more of 'them' than there are of 'us'. China beats us in manpower def, attacking us from the west. If they happened to get ashore we'd be toast, remember, most of our armed forces would be out and about attacking the other countries. We cant attack/invade every country at once, it would leave Us open and vulnerable from attacks by the other countries. We'd be spread out too thin. Dont count out Mexico who will attack from the south and Canada who would attack us from the north. Maybe if we were on the defense we'd have a chance, but offensively, forget it.
The instance itself would matter as well. We'd attack for selfish reasons, to flex out proverbial muscles, assuming we were on the offense. The other countries would have more at stake, their homes, their land and will refuse to have it taken from them. I think this will make them fight even harder. Not to mention the collective dislike for us that would drive them as well.
1,000xs over? What good would that do? Like it would take that many to begin with? I think our arrogance and over-confidence would be a huge hurdle if not our ultimate demise.
I'm sure you guys have heard of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction...there are no winners when it comes to war.

Kim

[edit on 6/2/10 by Demetre]

[edit on 6/2/10 by Demetre]


sorry, multiple misspellings!!

[edit on 6/2/10 by Demetre]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
No America could not take on the rest of the world, silly chest thumping crap in the end. It can destroy the world, but it would also be destroyed...



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Slim
 


Now I am not attacking you at all but I was passing by and saw this thread and I do not get something...

I scratched my head in some confusion as my engines cycled down and I was thus compelled to ask you why you would get bent out of shape over such ignorant comments? I could understand if these comments were well put together, researched correctly and executed with some panache but no sir that is not their nature.

Those comments as far as I can see, could have been written by a morose drunk who has taken it upon themselves to post before thinking. I see no reason in that context to give such silly comments the power you obviously have chosen to not only bestow on them but on their authors also by going to the effort of creating a thread in their honour.

In any case I do not think their argument matters in the slightest to me because who cares who has the bigger stick really? However what I might consider to be of importance may not be to them but in saying that I think these authors also have as much right to be annoying as long as they stay within the rules?

Welcome to ATS sir, here there be dragons, some are small and cute(ish) with a penchant for snapping at ankles, fingers and being of general annoyance and some be mighty and able take off a limb with a look – Who would have it any other way?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
What arrogance and ignorance.. Think recent history shows otherwise.. Vietnam.. Iraq.. Afghanistan..



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Haha! Ur so funny!! I posted that exact thing and thought it may offend the guys so retracted it. Yay to u!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Please can you show me where the US navy is greater than that of the rest of the world combined? I'd be really interested...

I can understand the US navy using a rule similar to that of the Royal Navy at height of Empire.. which was the 2 power rule . i.e greater than the combined force of the next 2 largest navies, but to claim the US Navy is bigger and can take on the fleets of the whole world combined needs a little support


Thanks
I heard the on the History Channel last week as a matter of fact. It was an interesting bit of information to me since I'm a veteran.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


America could not defeat the world, you think China and Russia would sit by and let themselves get blasted?
No

As soon an the US launches a nuke it will be picked up on every radar across the superpower world.
China and Russia couldn't stop the US from launching every one of it's nukes. And don't you think when i said we have enough nuclear arsenal to "destroy the globe 1,000 times over" that we'd destroy ourselves in the process?? Helloooo McFly.

What I said is accurate, you'll notice i said the statement is "technically" true, which it is. Come on people, words mean something.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
What arrogance and ignorance.. Think recent history shows otherwise.. Vietnam.. Iraq.. Afghanistan..
Yep, we no longer let the military wage wars to win them speedily and with the minimal amount of lives lost. Now we run wars from Washington with politics as the main strategic goal.

If we fought WWII the same way we fought the above wars you mentioned the outcome would have been completely different.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join