TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- USA vs The World.
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

In both conventional and unconventional non-nuclear warfare the USA will most likely reign supreme regardless if invading or being invaded. The USA has the numbers, the leadership, the technology, the battle-experience, the industry, the economics, and most importantly the navy.

The assumption that I am making is that the USA is able to mobolize its population (and if its an unconventional war that the USA does not fight morally (i.e. according to laws of war) ).

USA trade will obviously be effected, oil will need to be secured. However the USA now has a strategic base of operation in the world's oil theatre due to their invasion of Iraq. If the world declared war, the USA (fighting immorally) would make quick of the ability to capture the oil fields and continue export. Since most the oil fields and refineries are run by USA-expats anyway, their is no labor issue. The supremacy of the USA navy will ensure the exports reach USA shores. Conversly the rest of the world (esp. Europe) will face oil issues.

Other valuable resources can be as similarly secured. One must also remember that the USA consumer economy will disappear almost overnight (and so signifcantly deminishing the requirements of any consumer trade) as the economy converts to military production.

One must also remember that most of the largest militaries that pose some threat to the USA (UK, France, Italy, Israel, Japanese navy) are supplied and run in many cases up to 75% presently by US arm parts (and trained by USA military). Without spare parts or an infastrcutre for arms creation after the first blow most these nations will simply not have the industrial/knowledge capacity to replenish arms.

Since the USA controls space, air, and sea, I see little reason to doubt their success in securing the long-term resources and objectives to gain superiority in a world wide-war.

Anyway my .02$ on this ridicilous hypothetical

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: true, and glad for it. many americans do seem reluctant to fight war's overseas, but if there was a war on our soil, or that threatened our soil, not just with missles, but with invasion landings, than i think the americans would mobilize in a split second just like world war II if not bigger and faster.

yes.

americans would be fighting on our own soil in a flash... i'd fight...

>JM<

heh, I forgot to add that the USA is the world's largest food export. With no food or oil the rest of the world wouldn't be able to wage war for long...

Just for the sake of conjecture, doesn't the creation of a "terrorist" class of insurgents denote that a conqering Government has demonstrated leniency upon the citizens of whatever country they have invaded? That is, large Superpowers possess the ability to decimate large amounts of people in seconds. I am aware that a nuclear missle doesn't destroy an entire country, but when strategically placed, a strike can more than eliminate the possibility for any major resistance. If it is always in a country's best interest to preserve itself and its way of life over all others (super-Imperialism, if you will), wouldn't it be more prudent to merely just annihilate any and all opposition? The threat of this, no matter how unrealistic, is enough to drive people into fear - very likely the reason by which terrorist retaliation is ever understood: self-preservation and all that, whether the self is the individual or the way of life constituent of a territory.

Of course, in all reality, the hearts and minds are far more powerful a tool then nukes could ever be. But one must consider the long-term results of reverse-assimilation when incorporating societies for the sake of "peace". If self-preservation is the ultimate goal (even of both oppositions, insurgent or empire), then why are seperate cultures, especially ones which cannot effectively defend themselves, allowed to even threaten the smallest likelihood of absolute preservation? Is terrorism just as immoral an act as allowing another culture to live? Both threaten "way of life" and if nobody is willing to change once in a while, what is the point of preservation?

Goddamn - I know this is far too tautological to approach. Just thought that since it's now in fashion to propose ridiculous scenarios and objectively hypothetical situations, I might just as well attempt to lump together war and peace as one and the same.

quote:

Originally posted by kaffeemeister Why "Brazil, South Africa, Nepal, Bulgaria, or even France", have they done something wrong? These nations do not sponsor terrorism. The current war is against Terrorism (i think), and if they invade another nation, just because they feel like it, the decision makers deserve to be impaled.

I listed those because they are relatively harmless countries who mind their own business. Unlike the invasion of Iraq, where discussion on the reasons to go to war is possible, the US clearly and obviously would have no justification to invade one of these countries, and the rest of the world would need to decide on whether to do the (morally) sound thing and trough force rid the country of the invaders (as the UN did during Desert Storm), or the myopically sound (and wise?) thing and resort to condemning the act.
Another reason why I listed those countries, was that there are no PFRs from those countries, and I didn't want to be misunderstood, which invariably happens when I do not think my examples through.

quote:

Originally posted by Earthsnail China alone would kick our ass. and so would Russia

you are an idiot. Do you have the slighted insight into Russian military? Years ago when U.S.S.R. was around, they might've had a chance (keep in mind we're talking about a war with the absence of nuclear weapons and other WMD's). Nowdays Russian military is full of broke, homeless soldiers who are drafted in by being draged out of their apartments, beaten throughout Basic Training, deprived of pretty much any comforts and advantages. They sell weapons to their enemy for fuck's sake, a'la Chechnya. China once again has an alright military. Not enough however. U.S.A. does have superior technology and everything else but that's not wins war. Look at WWII and the Pacific. The Marines were outnumbered 10-1 on pretty much every island but patiotism and the Marines' own skills are second to none, and are on the level of Special Air Service and British Commando's. Next time if you want to make an argument, take some classes on the subject or at least do research.

P.S. I'm sure a bunch of fat MIGs have a chance against the F23's

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra you are an idiot. Do you have the slighted insight into Russian military? Years ago when U.S.S.R. was around, they might've had a chance (keep in mind we're talking about a war with the absence of nuclear weapons and other WMD's). Nowdays Russian military is full of broke, homeless soldiers who are drafted in by being draged out of their apartments, beaten throughout Basic Training, deprived of pretty much any comforts and advantages. They sell weapons to their enemy for fuck's sake, a'la Chechnya. China once again has an alright military. Not enough however. U.S.A. does have superior technology and everything else but that's not wins war. Look at WWII and the Pacific. The Marines were outnumbered 10-1 on pretty much every island but patiotism and the Marines' own skills are second to none, and are on the level of Special Air Service and British Commando's. Next time if you want to make an argument, take some classes on the subject or at least do research. P.S. I'm sure a bunch of fat MIGs have a chance against the F23's

actually, in the pacific, the marines landed on every island with at least a 2:1 ratio of men.

another example, patriotism doesnt win wars. the germans had devout patriotism to each other as soldiers. in france 1944, they were outnumbers in every aspect, of men, airplanes, supplies, tanks, but the germans always maintained the highest discipline and ground technology. a common statistic of the Tiger I was that it took 5 shermans to knock out one tiger, and 4 of the shermans would be knocked out themselves.

the USA is one of the only powers that can deploy its troops anywhere in the world at a moments notice, and is the best at it in the world. china and russia do not have this capability. they can fight land wars from their borders, but cannot make large scale amphibious/airborne assaults with sustaining drive as the USA can do.

Just to add a bit here, the russian Su-27 is still the best fighter jet out there.

That's because you're a russian prick who does nothing but worship his country. And you're misinformed buddy. Once again Marines were always outnumbered at least 5:1 Jesus Christ.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra That's because you're a russian prick who does nothing but worship his country. And you're misinformed buddy. Once again Marines were always outnumbered at least 5:1 Jesus Christ.

are you fucking retarded?

no are you? Go talk to me when you read some history books from other countries and take some courses in this shit instead of getting "sources" online. Bottom line is, name another fighting force more powerfull than the Marines if you want to continue this argument, and by Marines i do include Marine Force Recon.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra no are you? Go talk to me when you read some history books from other countries and take some courses in this shit instead of getting "sources" online. Bottom line is, name another fighting force more powerfull than the Marines if you want to continue this argument, and by Marines i do include Marine Force Recon.

the question is "Are the marines the most powerful in the world"?.

maybe you have a problem reading though, you should probaly take so courses in that shit to fix it.


also, since when has Zagreb been apart of Russia?

DrUg_Tit0

is russian. You retard, you really got me there. Really, jerk-off. I am offended. I cannot read nor write, yet somehow I am. lol

you should probaly take so courses in that shit to fix it.


You're an international genious, I've to hand it to you. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra DrUg_Tit0 is russian. You retard, you really got me there. Really, jerk-off. I am offended. I cannot read nor write, yet somehow I am. lol you should probaly take so courses in that shit to fix it. You're an international genious, I've to hand it to you. LOL

well considering your answering question no-one is asking i just presumed you had some reading problem.

quote:

prick who does nothing but worship his country.

haha. i found this very ironic aswell i must say. Your an amusing little person.

likewise, you're an annoying peasant . I don't worship this country but umm alright i'll shut up for the sake of an argument since you obviously can't spell. Oh, and don't even gimme the whole "Tranceaddict in Training" as a valid diss lol. Please, go ahead i want to hear what you have to say on this delightful subject. That is, ofcourse, if you're dinky brain could conjure up a good argument. Enjoy.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra likewise, you're an annoying peasant . I don't worship this country but umm alright i'll shut up for the sake of an argument since you obviously can't spell. Oh, and don't even gimme the whole "Tranceaddict in Training" as a valid diss lol. Please, go ahead i want to hear what you have to say on this delightful subject. That is, of course, if you're dinky brain could conjure up a good argument. Enjoy.

oh please, i aint that fuckn lame to slag someone over there status.

which argument, the USA vs The world, the "what was the ratio of troops in the Pacific war", or the "are the marines the most powerful in the world?"

well I'll definatly give you some respect for the first part. The rest is up to you.

Lets say a war between USA and the world kicked off tomorrow, and the world had to invade USA then i think the world would win.

If just one other country had to invade america they wouldnt have a chance.

USA would be able to defeat most countires by invading them, but i think Russia and China would be a very big task, and i dont know if they would succed.


Yeopus' post about it, was valid enough, but you could poke alot of holes in his theories and i dont think USA would be succesful in a war against the world.

as for the other matter i dont know enough/anything to make a valid argument.

Against the world; that's a dead give away. i mean it'd be like 500,000 soldiers and sailors against about 900 million. China has a huge strength in numbers, but don't know about them winning. Let's hope we'll never have to experience that kind of warfare...though cleansing the middle east would insure that. hmm.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra Against the world; that's a dead give away. i mean it'd be like 500,000 soldiers and sailors against about 900 million. China has a huge strength in numbers, but don't know about them winning. Let's hope we'll never have to experience that kind of warfare...though cleansing the middle east would insure that. hmm.

well the title says against the world so i thought i would just throw that in there.

If you tried to invade China i doubt you would succeed, any other way then yes. Also i dont think the middle east is where you have to worry about.

Invading iraqi only made things worse, also its north korea i would be more wary of now then anyone is the middle east.

i agree, the Iraq situation is very complex, but I think Bush did the right thing. North Korea however is much more dangerous since they posses nuclear weapons and the dictator (Name seems to escape me) is a very jumpy fellow. If he so much as even smells we're mobilizing he will annihilate us. lol...kinda scary actually. I know people who are stationed in South Korea.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra That's because you're a russian prick who does nothing but worship his country. And you're misinformed buddy. Once again Marines were always outnumbered at least 5:1 Jesus Christ.

more like the marines outnumbered the japanese 5:1. what u think we landed 300 marines in guadalcanal, tarawa, iwo jima, to fight thousands of suicidally patriotic japanese?? we lost hundreds of thousands of men in the pacific. even in the beginning of the war, the japanese took the phillipians and they were outnumbered, in thailand, the japanese captured an army of 70,000 brits with only 30,000 troops. the japanese rarely outnumbered the marines.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra Against the world; that's a dead give away. i mean it'd be like 500,000 soldiers and sailors against about 900 million. China has a huge strength in numbers, but don't know about them winning. Let's hope we'll never have to experience that kind of warfare...though cleansing the middle east would insure that. hmm.

our active military right now numbers about 1.4 million. and in the event of a war the size one with china would be, im sure our nation would be smart to mobilize to meet the threat. WWII, we had 7 million frontline soldiers by 1945, germany 5 million, USSR, 15 million, britian, somewhere in 1-2 million. japan 2 million(homeland). rough guesses.

huge war.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild If it happened now there would probably be a stalemate. I would defect and fight against the US personally.

leave asshole

umm...Germany and Japan are limited to a standing army of no more than 100,000 after the WWII...also, there's a quote for your bullshit "There is your way and then there's something we like to call the right way ".

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.