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.

Here are some figures.

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 tête nucléaire océanique), 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.

___________________

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

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

___________________
First thing we learn about emotion, is that it has it's price. A complete paradox. But without control, without restraint, emotion is C H A O 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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
First thing we learn about emotion, is that it has it's price. A complete paradox. But without control, without restraint, emotion is C H A O S.

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?

___________________
Liverpool Champions of Europe 2005!


TA's NFL survival League winner 2006!

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.

___________________
First thing we learn about emotion, is that it has it's price. A complete paradox. But without control, without restraint, emotion is C H A O S.