|
USA vs The World. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| 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. |
|
|
| kaffeemeister |
The person whoever that started this thread should be shot and hang by the balls :whip:; 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). |
|
|
| trancaholic |
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? |
|
|
| policerobots |
| 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. |
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 |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| 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 |
everything is cheaper in china :D im surprised we don't have chinese forced labor making our military weapons yet |
|
|
| Earthsnail |
China alone would kick our ass.
and so would Russia |
|
|
| zig |
| 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 |
|
|
| 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 :p).
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? :nervous: 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. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| 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 n towel heads in iraqi for gods sake. |
in conventional warfare, the USA is exceptionally excelled. the towel-heads you are referring to are fighting and "unconventional" war. they are not meeting our troops in the field of battle, army vs. army. they are hitting and running. mingling among the common people, spread out, and in small groups. they have no central command, no capital to take, no arms factories to destroy.
but in times of desperation, nucleur weapons will be used. if it comes down to whether or not the USA will be conquered, u bet the president is going to authorize a nucleur strike, even though it would mean millions of deaths, the survival of the nation is paramount. we can always rebuild later. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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 :p).
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? :nervous: 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. |
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. |
|
|
| kaffeemeister |
Yep Tito.. i've taken it a bit serious, i should stop and think before the dark side takes over me :disbelief. 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. |
That is correct ;) well if you round it off
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp
I'm not sure with these weapons though, i don't think administrative official are that insane to unleash either one of these fellas.
TranceVanDyk: yeap, it's not the conventional type of warfare you would like to think, there's a range of books dealing with "Counter-Insurgency"/"Counter-Terrorism"/"Asymmetric warfare"/"Guerilla Warfare"; i'm uncertain about the validity of comptemporary authors on this topic though, haven't done any research or studied them as a matter of fact. |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Earthsnail
China alone would kick our ass.
and so would Russia |
Um No. But im not saying the U.S. would be able to beat the world. IMO I dont think there is any "1" country that could take out the U.S.
This thread was made just to dicuss what this Military Analyst said & if anyone else had similar thoughts or if this guy was way off. |
|
|
|
|
