TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- USA vs The World.
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
USA vs The World.
Is there any country or any 2 countrys that could win in a war with the United States (non nuclear war).? I just had a conversation with a friend on this after he saw some cable show with a Canadian Military analyst. The Canadian Military analyst stated that with the airforce of the U.S. & the supreme military & inteligence the U.S. has is impossible to beat. He also went along & stated that he strongly believed that right now even if every country in the world declared war against the U.S. that he estimated a stalemate. Which I was shocked to hear. His reasonings was mainly the Airforce & its technology. Another reason he mentioned was that the military is currently at war & is prepared more than most coutries that are just exercising & the U.S. military commanders & generals are the best in strategically planning an attack or defence. I have to agree on that because before the Gulf, Afganistan & Iraqi war all the enemy had to do was put on CNN to see whats going on & what the battle plan was. Another reason the analyst mentioned was Military would issue a draft & he mentioned that American Citizens would never allow a war to be fought on thier soil.
So what are your thoughts.?
If it happened now there would probably be a stalemate. I would defect and fight against the US personally.
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.
You think you would beat a non nuclear war against the rest of the world?
you cant even beat a few fuckn towel heads in iraqi for gods sake.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Michael19 You think you would beat a non nuclear war against the rest of the world? you cant even beat a few fuckn towel heads in iraqi for gods sake. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jonSun I must clarify. We owned Iraq in the initial invasion. Now we are fighting terrorist insurgents that blend in with everyone else. Its alot harder war to fight. Plus if Iraq or any other country were to try & invade us they wouldnt have made it 1/2 way across the ocean before being destroyed. |
Not another the US will kick ass post.
I found a new traffic reporting thread. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Michael19 still would have a chance against the rest of the world, one or two countires maybe. if canda invaved you, have to send alot of troops to defend the border, attack from south destroy, basically attack from all sides, i think you would easily lose a war again the rest of the world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jonSun No im not saying we would win against the rest of the world. But I do agree with some of what the Canadian Military analyst was saying. Also if Canada wanted to attack us. The border would be the easy part. We would bomb by land air & sea all thier military bases, communications & checkpoints. Then I think they would give up after a day of getting bombed & then reaLizing thier military & people are in dispair. |
The thing with US is that it is dependant on the rest of the world for its economy and energy needs. If the whole world decided to attack the US, the country would crumble because of the lack of resources and manufactured goods. Many US companies have factories overseas, many of them depend on foreign trade.
Secondly, let's not forget that the US couldn't simply invade Europe, Russia, or China. They could carry out random airstrikes, but not much more than that. It is likely that the US would be winning military fights in the beginning, but ultimately, the rest of the world would manage to invade. Like with Germany and Hitler. They did have the strongest military at the time, but even with their allies they simply couldn't have reached the amount of industrial production that the rest of the world had.
What would the goal of the war be?
US could never win a war against major powers if the US was trying to take over another major country (eg. china, etc). The US although superior in weapon technologies would be so overmatched in human numbers, even with them having slightly older weapons that it would never win. Now perhaps if you had a more realistic war where allies come into play then things change drastically.
As far as a war on the USA soil, no country or countries would ever win in the US and I feel the same would be with countries like China. Although we don't have great defences here at home (eg. missile batteries etc set up) we are protected by two seas (that would require lots of ships and airlifts which would be promptly destroyed) and it would be highly unlikely that canada or mexico would open it's borders to destroying the US. Also remember that >40% of the US public owns arms and a large percentage multiple arms. You also have to factor in how patriotic many of the US citizens are, think of Pearl Harbor except multiplied by 100x as that wasn't even on the continental soil. When you have such large countries it would require millions of troops just to occupy the territory.
This US vs. The World war really depends on where the war is being fought.
If it were on US soil the US would probably fend off any invading country with relative ease. Fighting the war anywhere else on the planet would mean that the US would find it difficult to defeat even the most feable opponent. For example Vietnam, and even Iraq today (and no, the initial invasion was not a success.. insurgents merely waited until now to attack as it is a much more superior strategy in fighting a US army).
On neutral ground the US would lose a war to countries like China, and mayyybe Russia. It all comes down to numbers in infantry, and nothing to do with airforce capabilities. Yugoslavia copped a barrage from the US and NATO airforces in 1999 and did virtually nothing to dent the military capabilities of the country.
War isnt a Hollywood movie, and it doesnt just take military superiority to win a war. The efforts of just a handful can bring down any superpower.
I don't think the US would come close to winning a war with the entire world. If it happened right now the US military and defenses aren't in best shape as it is. The intelligence agencies are going through major changes, our armed forces are spread out all over the godamn place. Plus the US has a big advantage for wars like Iraq because we have bases all over the world so we can launch attacks from pretty much anywhere. But those would easily be taken down if we were against everyone. Also, these points make me wonder how well we would do against a major power or powers if we went to war now. We'd have to work real fast to forget about Iraq and regroup our forces.
The person whoever that started this thread should be shot and hang by the balls 
; do you understand the sheer destructiveness of the creation of such a themed thread... you have no idea.
US versus World?... That must be a pretty screwed up piece of diplomacy to lead to that consequence. At the current state, it is illogical that major powers of the world would want to start a war.
Combination of the following would cause headaches for the United States; People's Republic of China, Russia Federation, State of Israel, French Republic.
War is neither based on number or based on technological might, it's based on the ability to adapt. Thus at this point i would stand my neutrality to say "Wtf is with that Canadian Military Expert", "That must be a fudged up world scenario they have planned" and finally "If it is likely that human ignorance or arrogance degrade to that state of warfare; then let us all be enslaved to the agony of death or the every lasting consequence of total war (nuclear warfare).
I agree with those of you who said that the answer to the question depends on whether the US is invading or defending.
Another question which might be of interest is what countries could the US decide to attack without getting other countries agitated to an extent where they interfere in the war - against the US? Considering the reactions stemming from the invasion of Iraq (probably one of the most unpopular countries prior to the invasion), imagine what kind of reactions that would result from invasion of countries such as Brazil, South Africa, Nepal, Bulgaria, or even France. Do you think that the US would be allowed to get away with it?
Re: USA vs The World.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jonSun The Canadian Military analyst stated that with the airforce of the U.S. & the supreme military & inteligence the U.S. has is impossible to beat. |
Re: Re: USA vs The World.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by policerobots the US is #1 in military spending, yet whats even more shocking is that the spending is more than the following 3 runner-ups combined(including china) i forgot where the figures were but ill dig it up later |
im surprised we don't have chinese forced labor making our military weapons yet
China alone would kick our ass.
and so would Russia
I read an article about a year agocant remember by who where when etc..but it maintained that if the world lined up all its nuclear weapons and then the USA lined up all its nuclear weapons..the USA would have a margin of 10 nuclear weapons to 1 for the rest of the world..it just concentrated on nuclear weapons only..quite a margin
I'm currently quite bewildered at the fallacious and misguided perceptions of certain repost. This is because of at the sheer lack of knowledge of certain people in regards to this field of science (some might say it's not a study of science, as the amateurs who engage in this field are redneck gun nut 
).
For now i would stand down for the moment without rebuting any of the posts been made from the initial reply; however, rest assured, if this thread does develop to a discussion of some sort; other than turning into an Anti-American flame thread (which i predict would happen), i'll be definitely be going back through my fascist textbooks that i haven't touched in 5 years perhaps.
If it's the World versus USA scenario; then the USA must have screwed up pretty bad diplomatically, and if that case follows, from numerous texts dating back the the 4/5th Century BC, it implies that no matter what, the state and the army in the hands of each other, if one fails, all fails (thus if the state fails, you do not stand a chance).
==
trancaholic: They 'might' get away with it, however, their rational motive for invading a sovereign state (Iraq) has not been justified sufficiently (nullification of the premise present to the world for the invasion), this has greatly or completely dimished their creditability to the world community.
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.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Michael19 You think you would beat a non nuclear war against the rest of the world? you cant even beat a few fuckn towel heads in iraqi for gods sake. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kaffeemeister I'm currently quite bewildered at the fallacious and misguided perceptions of certain repost. This is because of at the sheer lack of knowledge of certain people in regards to this field of science (some might say it's not a study of science, as the amateurs who engage in this field are redneck gun nut ).For now i would stand down for the moment without rebuting any of the posts been made from the initial reply; however, rest assured, if this thread does develop to a discussion of some sort; other than turning into an Anti-American flame thread (which i predict would happen), i'll be definitely be going back through my fascist textbooks that i haven't touched in 5 years perhaps. If it's the World versus USA scenario; then the USA must have screwed up pretty bad diplomatically, and if that case follows, from numerous texts dating back the the 4/5th Century BC, it implies that no matter what, the state and the army in the hands of each other, if one fails, all fails (thus if the state fails, you do not stand a chance). == trancaholic: They 'might' get away with it, however, their rational motive for invading a sovereign state (Iraq) has not been justified sufficiently (nullification of the premise present to the world for the invasion), this has greatly or completely dimished their creditability to the world community. 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. |
Yep Tito.. i've taken it a bit serious, i should stop and think before the dark side takes over me 
. Heheh...
The thread will only become a flame post only if certain "people" arrive into this post and beginning posting; this in fact will in fact piss certain people off => flame.
| quote: |
| As for the amount of nukes someone mentioned, the ratio is not 10:1. If I remember correctly, USSR had about 80% of the US amount of missiles. Combined with the rest of the world it's about 1:1. Maybe the ratio dropped a bit since the end of the cold war, but certainly not by that much. |
well if you round it off
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Earthsnail China alone would kick our ass. and so would Russia |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 You're kinda taking this too seriously. I fail to see how this can result in anti-american flame wars any more than any other thread. It's just a hypothetical situation. As for the amount of nukes someone mentioned, the ratio is not 10:1. If I remember correctly, USSR had about 80% of the US amount of missiles. Combined with the rest of the world it's about 1:1. Maybe the ratio dropped a bit since the end of the cold war, but certainly not by that much. |
| quote: |
Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945�2002 By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen November/December 2002 pp. 103-104 (vol. 58, no. 06) � 2002 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists The five major nuclear powers currently have more than 20,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenals, as shown in the table at right. But this does not include a number of intact Russian nuclear warheads of indeterminate status--possibly as many as 10,000. Of the more than 30,000 intact warheads belonging to the world's eight nuclear weapon states, the vast majority (96 percent) are in U.S. or Russian stockpiles. About 17,500 of these warheads are considered operational. The rest are in reserve or retired and awaiting dismantlement. We estimate that since 1945, more than 128,000 nuclear warheads have been built worldwide--all but 2 percent of them by the United States (55 percent) and the Soviet Union or Russia (43 percent). Since the Cold War ended, more and more warheads in U.S. and Russian stockpiles are being moved from operational status into various reserve, inactive, or contingency categories. The destruction of warheads is not required under current arms control agreements. For example, the 2002 Moscow Treaty (the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty) contains no verification provisions and completely ignores non-operational and non-strategic warheads. The result is that stockpiles are more opaque and more difficult to describe with precision. The United States has produced some 70,000 warheads since 1945, of which, 60,000 have been dismantled (more than 12,000 of them since 1990). The U.S. arsenal contains approximately 10,600 intact warheads. Of this number, nearly 8,000 are considered active or operational. In addition, several hundred warheads await disassembly at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, including the W56 and W79 warheads, around 36 B53 bombs, and some excess non-strategic B61 bombs. These warheads should have been dismantled by 2000, but for various reasons, the schedule has been extended. As detailed in the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the plan is to reduce the number of "operationally deployed strategic warheads" to 1,700--2,200 by the end of 2012. With the possible exception of the Minuteman III W62, there will be no further dismantlement of warheads beyond those specified in the 1994 NPR. The reduction of operationally deployed warheads will be accomplished by transferring warheads from active delivery vehicles to either a "responsive force" or to "inactive reserve." An example of inactive reserve warheads are those that do not have limited life components, such as tritium. Any additional disassembly before 2014, according to the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, would compete with planned refurbishments of the nine warhead types in the enduring stockpile. If current plans are fulfilled, by 2012 we estimate that the United States will have approximately 10,000 intact warheads--essentially the same number as today. Russia has not released information about the size of its stockpile. We estimate that since 1949 the Soviet Union/Russia has produced about 55,000 nuclear warheads, and that about 30,000 warheads existed in 1990--1991. The U.S. Defense Department and CIA estimate that Russia dismantled slightly more than 1,000 warheads per year during the 1990s, so that its remaining stockpile of intact warheads may be around 18,600. Only around 8,600 of these are thought to be operational. As many as 10,000 nuclear warheads are believed to be in non-operational status: in reserve for possible redeployment or retired and awaiting dismantlement. The Moscow Treaty limits Russia's operationally deployed strategic warheads to no more than 2,200 by 2012, but because of limited resources and funding, it is unlikely that Russia will be able to sustain that many. Russia had pressed for a limit of 1,500 warheads, and if significant numbers of warheads are not refurbished and returned to operational forces, the stockpile could shrink to as few as 1,000 strategic warheads and no more than 1,000 tactical warheads over the next 10 years. Britain is estimated to have produced approximately 1,200 warheads since 1953. Its current stockpile is thought to consist of some 200 strategic and "sub-strategic" warheads on Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The government declared in July 1998 that there would "be fewer than 200 operationally available warheads," of which 48 warheads would be on patrol at any given time on a single SSBN. The British arsenal peaked in the 1970s at 350 warheads. France maintains approximately 350 warheads, down from 540 in 1992. France has produced more than 1,260 nuclear warheads since 1964. It has dismantled its land-based ballistic missiles and retired its nuclear bombs for delivery by naval-strike aircraft. The M51 sea-launched ballistic missile scheduled for deployment in 2010 was initially slated to carry an entirely new warhead (the TNO, or t�te nucl�aire oc�anique), but will instead be equipped with a more robust version of an existing design (probably the TN-75). China is estimated to have an arsenal of around 400 nuclear warheads, down from 435 in 1993. China is thought to have produced some 600 nuclear warheads since 1964, and U.S. intelligence and defense agencies predict that over the next 15 years China may increase the number of warheads on primarily U.S-targeted missiles from 20 to between 75--100. India and Pakistan, the world's two newest declared nuclear powers, have fewer than 100 nuclear warheads between them, most of which are not yet operationally deployed. We estimate that India has produced enough fissile material for 45--95 nuclear warheads but may have assembled only 30--35, and that Pakistan has produced fissile material sufficient for 30--52 weapons and assembled 24--48 warheads. Both countries are thought to be increasing their stockpiles. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied possession of nuclear weapons, although U.S. intelligence reports for many years have labeled Israel a de facto nuclear power. Some unofficial reports estimate Israel's arsenal to have as many as 200 warheads, the first of which reportedly was assembled in 1967. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.