USA vs. the World

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I wouldn't worry too much about the war games that the chinese and russian forces are taking part in..quite harmless....

The combined might of Russian and Chinese forces harmless.. Come into the light my friend.. I suggest you study up on economic warfare, the state of the U.S. economy and the issue of Peak Oil. Or keep your head in the sand..

I never said the 'combined might' would be harmless, I said that such wargames do not indicate a mjor alligence of sorts..India and the US have had many wargames for the last 10-15 years...it doesn't amount to military ally status or anything of that sort. If it did China would have its underpants in quite a twist!!

also if one is to judge prowess by manpower then the US would never be a match for China+India..leaving Russia out of the equation...IMHO the US as of now has an upper hand on the EU...but not too much..it'd be a good fight..

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The sad thing is, it shouldn't have to come to war. It's these warmongering idiot Neo Cons and their ridiculously stupid policies that endanger us.

You are the one who brought up the hypothetical issue of the world going to war against the US. Europe, Russian, and indeed most of the world hasn't made any moves of the sort, and here you are blaming people for a non existant war.

trent (and others have expressed a similar sentiment)
Against the EU alone the US would win if it happened today or in the near future. Years from now if countries like Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe were in the EU and had recovered economically the story may be different

There is only one coalition of countries that can plausibly be a problem for the US, and the is the former Soviet Republics with their Cold War era nuclear stockpile. But I don't belevie that these countries have force projection capabilities that the soviets once did. Just look at the problems russia is having in chechyna.

I mean, I see a lot of people discussin this like it woudl be fought with conventional armies destroying each other on the battle field. Any nation-state that tries to invade the US is going to be hit with the US nuclear arsenal. There is not invasion scenario that can be worked out, its simply a matter of starting a nuclear holocaust. Even after that, I suspect that the US military has better capabilities for fighting on a nuclear contaminated battle field, since that would involve tanks and bradleys, and the abrams are filtered and the bradleys were (at least originally) designed with just that scenario in mind, and, from what I understand, american 'battle wagons' are above and beyond old soviet battle wagons. Not to mention that the germans, for example, would have to be asking the Russians and Ukranians to nuke american bases inside of germany, which is simply too unlikley to merit consideration. And germany is hardly the only country that would have that problem.

Also, any situation invovling a large russian/old soviet conventional response has to keep something in mind. During the iraq war, the iraqis used soviet tactics and strategy for their tank battles, and were resoundingly defeated by remote and combined arms tactics from the US. Unless the russians have developed and entirely new army with new leadership and tactics in the past year, they will generally meet the same fate. And while the Nato allies probably use tactics similar to those of the americans, what is that going to matter anyway, when the americans have shoulder launched nuclear war heads and stealth cruise missiles, not to mention complete domination of space.

Also, while the brits invented VX gas after WWII, as far as I understand it only the US and Russians put much research into chemical and biological weapons. So the advantage there is also for the US, as chemical weapons will obviously be used. Whereas the 'global alliance' will have to somehow get russia to give them its chem/bio weapons and then use the british navy to get them to the US and then release them, the americans simply have to release them from their bases inside the member-states of this 'global alliance'.

I mean, the US has one of the most powerful armies on the planet. It has one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons on the planet. It has one of the most advanced nuclear missile defense shields on the planet. It has the largest space fleet on the planet. And probably has the largest chemical andmost virulent biological weapons stiockpile on the planet. Other countries have some things that compare, russian nukes, british ships, german tactics, indian manpower and chinese missiles, but none of them have that combination of advantages in such overwhelming numbers.

Of course, there won't be much left of the planet after this imaginary America verses the World war, and that is enough to make anyone on the 'world' side not participate.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I mean, the US has one of the most powerful armies on the planet. It has one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons on the planet. It has one of the most advanced nuclear missile defense shields on the planet. It has the largest space fleet on the planet. And probably has the largest chemical andmost virulent biological weapons stiockpile on the planet. Other countries have some things that compare, russian nukes, british ships, german tactics, indian manpower and chinese missiles, but none of them have that combination of advantages in such overwhelming numbers.

I very much doubt the US or the rest of the world would risk using nukes or any other WMD. It would mean mutural assured destruction and having your country occupied is better than no one left alive to fight, for whoever looses. Looking at these stats do you think anyone would prefer a nuclear war to being occupied until they overthrow the invaders.

United States: 12,000 warheads
Russia: 22,500 warheads
United Kingdom: 380 warheads
France: 450 warheads
China: 400 warheads
Pakistan: 12-18 warheads
India: 12-18 warheads

usgovinfo.about.com...

Ah those nukes numbers are sooo wrong!!!...
Figures though the source of those numbers was CNN....

Originally posted by Daedalus3
also if one is to judge prowess by manpower then the US would never be a match for China+India..leaving Russia out of the equation...IMHO the US as of now has an upper hand on the EU...but not too much..it'd be a good fight..

No not when when a force almost 2 times your size with superior weapons,armour,training,fire power etc etc.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Ah those nukes numbers are sooo wrong!!!...
Figures though the source of those numbers was CNN....

Well FAS has similar figures in their chart and they got their info from the US department of state, who got it from START member submissions. Don't trust CNN, how about the US department of state?

"As of July 31, 2001 as compiled from individual data submissions of the Parties"

www.fas.org...

www.state.gov...



[edit on 8-1-2005 by Trent]

Originally posted by Trent

Originally posted by Nygdan
I mean, the US has one of the most powerful armies on the planet. It has one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons on the planet. It has one of the most advanced nuclear missile defense shields on the planet. It has the largest space fleet on the planet. And probably has the largest chemical andmost virulent biological weapons stiockpile on the planet. Other countries have some things that compare, russian nukes, british ships, german tactics, indian manpower and chinese missiles, but none of them have that combination of advantages in such overwhelming numbers.

I very much doubt the US or the rest of the world would risk using nukes or any other WMD. It would mean mutural assured destruction and having your country occupied is better than no one left alive to fight, for whoever looses. Looking at these stats do you think anyone would prefer a nuclear war to being occupied until they overthrow the invaders.

United States: 12,000 warheads
Russia: 22,500 warheads
United Kingdom: 380 warheads
France: 450 warheads
China: 400 warheads
Pakistan: 12-18 warheads
India: 12-18 warheads

usgovinfo.about.com...

The CNN reference for the warhead totals is from 1998, in 2002 when the posted link was made the US and Russia both had around 6,000 warheads. The US and Russia should be down to around 2500 each by late this year...

Yeah your right, my mistake. Anyway just 6 nukes would be bad so even without crazy numbers the deterrent is still there.



[edit on 8-1-2005 by Trent]

Originally posted by Trent
When they give the number 6000 they are talking about ones that are deliverable, Russia has 21 000 and the US has 12 000 nukes in their stockpile.

www.fas.org...

No. That is WRONG. Did you look at the date on the web site you quoted? Try 1 January 1999. Lots of things have chagned since then.

For example the US taken several SSBN's off line and converted many former SLBM launchers to cruise missile launchers, downloaded MMIII missiles to 1 warhead, is in the process of deactivating the Peacekeeper ICBM, and signifigantly reduced the number of strategic bombers. While some of the warheads have been retained for use as spares, most have been dismantled IAW the START treaties ...

Also China has around 600 warheads, India around a 100 and Pakistan say 15 to 20...Its quite insulting to give the same no. of warheads to india and Pakistan..

Originally posted by Trent
I very much doubt the US or the rest of the world would risk using nukes or any other WMD. It would mean mutural assured destruction and having your country occupied is better than no one left alive to fight, for whoever looses.

It is the responsibility of the american government to respond to an outright threat to national survival, such as territorial invasion by a global alliance bent on conquest. If c.f the Axis in wwii invaded the US, no doubt nukes would be used. It wouldn't make sense for the invader to use nukes, because any nuke strike results in a thermonuclear holocaust (this of course is the reasoning behind MAD). But it would make sense for the invaded to use nukes, even if it results in a similar response.


Looking at these stats do you think anyone would prefer a nuclear war to being occupied until they overthrow the invaders.

I find it surprising that anyone would think that the US wouldn't use nukes to respond to invasion and occupation. The whole reason those arsenals were made is to do just that. I understand what you are saying, but do you really think that the government cares about the possibility of a resistance someday overthrowing the occupiers? Definitly not.

boom


*eurgh*

ooooohh

Originally posted by Nygdan


It is the responsibility of the american government to respond to an outright threat to national survival, such as territorial invasion

Hmmm... you mean like our INVASION of Iraq, which was, like it or not, a SOVEREIGN nation. Based on your reasoning, it would have been Saddam's job to NUKE us back.. oh yeah, I forgot.. Saddam didn't have any! How sad that I'm even laughing. But then again, BushLogic is quite insane.

Puh-leeze. The USA is the only nation left that's into colonization and military posturing - and is stupid enough to front for the corporate NWO, and let them pull their strings. FYI - Empires fall because they orchestrate their own demise.

.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by soficrow] brain burps

[edit on 26-1-2005 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
Empires fall because they orchestrate their own demise.

BushCo. seems to be doing an extremely impressive job of it.

do the words "Nuclear holocasut" come to mind? if this happened and all countries against us (except france, canada, UK, and australia) the us'd use their nuclear arenal and space nukes if need be

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
America is the supreme power in the world without a doubt. Not just with armed forces but in every aspect of the modern world. The entire economic system of the world is based on and relies on America. Look at the Tiger Crash in 1997/8, Greenspan himself alone prevented a major global recession by changing rates etc, on the verge of a global recession the world experienced the biggest boom in history.

All money in the world flows in and out of America or has some involvement with America at some level, 99% of entertainment, both films, music, tv shows (do you even know how many USA shows are in syndication around the world in more than 55 countries???) diet and restaurants and food (America feeds the world with grain...not forgetting Mc Donalds and Coke) fashion with Levi and the like. American culture IS the culture of the world as it is now.

And what exactly are you using to read and access this information? American software, at most operating system on Windows, at least some driver software or application..and the net itself? off spring from the American Military and Universities!!!!!

Thats fanatic nonsense, your % has no bases, US economy has been and will be one of the most important in the world, but i doubt in near future it will have such effects as used back to begin of 90's, dont you know EU for example has so called buffers to prevent such scenario to cause same blow as in 90's and back then i think US suffered sameway first and then started one of the fastest growth in Europe and US that ended in so called IT bubble. Now China is new economical train.

Originally posted by iksmodnad
call me crazy but I think the US would win a war, against the whole world without using nukes.

Wishful thinking. We can't even secure Iraq.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by iksmodnad
call me crazy but I think the US would win a war, against the whole world without using nukes.

Wishful thinking. We can't even secure Iraq.

Well, I dont know if the US could beat the world, but I should mention there is a HUGE difference between securing something and destroying it. I must admit the US is very adept at destroying things.