U.S.A could take over the world if they wanted to. Could they???

Death-hands a policy now earlier you said it was a program installed in some mountain....

This is a diagram of a Russian government underground railway system that is designed to move Russian HVTs from the Kremlin to Mt. Yamantau. Mt.Yamantau is a gigantic underground, nuke-hardened Russian command center in the Caucasus. If Russian leadership is wiped out and don't make it to Mt. Yamantau, then DEAD-HAND is initiated from the command complex at Mt.Yamantau.

Modern times was the name of the era the car was invented in.

Car was invented over a hundred years ago.

Supposedly because the USA and Russia have the biggest stockpile of nukes were supposed to be forever enemies?

The USSR and the USA had treaties limiting testing, development and armament of nuclear weapons. The UN almost passed a nuclear weapon abolishment treaty.... but then Bush took over with his neo-conservative government. The US then dropped out of most of the treaties. US started developing and testing new generations of nuclear weapons, including space-based weapon platforms. US also started pushing for anti-ballistic missile shields, which is against the ABM Treaty that the US dropped out of (ABM shields help first strike capabilities).

This has made the world nervous of US intentions and so Russia has started their own modernization of their nuclear forces. This is also why North Korea dropped out of disarmament talks. Nuclear provocation is the US's game of the last 10 years.

You keep hoping that if America tries to throw down your country Russia will step in.
When they dont ill laugh at you. (my apologies if you live in either countries)

I am Canadian. I live between both countries.

Everyone hates the USA but we give the most Aid to the world.

No you don't. US has significantly dropped IMF contributions over the last 10 years because it claims it can't afford it (which is BS). I think the percent obligated to IMF donation is like 1.4% of GDP, and both the US and Canada refuse to meet that obligation, while poverty strikes the world.

We were the deterrent from the Soviet Union trying to take Europe over.

USSR wasn't trying to take over Europe so much as the West likes to claim in order to justify the existence of NATO.

Dont say they didnt want to they discussed it.

Operation Crimson, the US's plan to invade Canada. It has been on the American planning table ever since American Independence.

Trust me though if we had to we would be through the middle east in a month if we used russian tactics.which are shoot everything that looks dangerous and all civilians.

lol right. Russia doesn't use mercinaries; US employs more mercs than soldiers for a good reason. Soviets were in Afghanistan in order to support the communist government there that the CIA was trying to take down. Then the CIA drew in the Soviets and worked them over by aiding the guerrillas.

US is in Afghanistan to maintain a strategic foothold on oil assets in the region, because the US has a massive reliance on middle eastern oil.

Large conventional bomb to destroy troops?
It was made for a show of strength. Russia still cant make their own computer without help can they?

I wouldn't know, don't really care either. I can't make a computer, but I can sure shoot a gun.

Rusians not stupid?????
America in a battle vs Russia wouldnt have to deal with their navy or their airforce. Why land ground troops when you can destroy their army with air support?

Because for one, Russia has a world-class navy, army and airforce. The US has never really engaged in an equivalent army before.

And the US wouldn't even be able to achieve air supremacy from Russian SAMs alone. S-400 > F-22.

OH YEAH I CALLED YOU A DUMBASS WHO CAN NOT SEE CLEARLY THE USA RIGHT NOW COULD GET OUT OF DEBT NO INFINITELY ABOUT IT 23 TRILLION BARRELS OF OIL IN RESERVE 15 TRILLION IN NAME OF OUR GOVERNMENT SELL IT FOR AVG. PRICE WE OUT OF DEBT,
FURTHER MORE WE GET OUT OF DEBT AT THIS VERY MOMENT THE ECONOMY WOULD COLLAPSE DUE TO THE SWELLING OF THAT MUCH MONEY TO ONE COUNTRY.......
LEARN YOUR FACTS BRO.

I personally don't care about oil. I live without it and I survive just fine.

Not all doomsday devices are designed to destroy the entire planet. Some will destroy countries and leave it at that. That's how good the technology really is.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


You say you live without oil? Then what is fueling your computer: water?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi



This is a diagram of a Russian government underground railway system that is designed to move Russian HVTs from the Kremlin to Mt. Yamantau. Mt.Yamantau is a gigantic underground, nuke-hardened Russian command center in the Caucasus. If Russian leadership is wiped out and don't make it to Mt. Yamantau, then DEAD-HAND is initiated from the command complex at Mt.Yamantau.


Car was invented over a hundred years ago.



The USSR and the USA had treaties limiting testing, development and armament of nuclear weapons. The UN almost passed a nuclear weapon abolishment treaty.... but then Bush took over with his neo-conservative government. The US then dropped out of most of the treaties. US started developing and testing new generations of nuclear weapons, including space-based weapon platforms. US also started pushing for anti-ballistic missile shields, which is against the ABM Treaty that the US dropped out of (ABM shields help first strike capabilities).
Thank you for that info. (not sarcasm for real) I really did not know that ABM shields did that.
This has made the world nervous of US intentions and so Russia has started their own modernization of their nuclear forces. This is also why North Korea dropped out of disarmament talks. Nuclear provocation is the US's game of the last 10 years.


I am Canadian. I live between both countries.


USSR wasn't trying to take over Europe so much as the West likes to claim in order to justify the existence of NATO.
Justify the strongest military alliance ever against one country?

Operation Crimson, the US's plan to invade Canada. It has been on the American planning table ever since American Independence.

lol right. Russia doesn't use mercinaries; US employs more mercs than soldiers for a good reason. Soviets were in Afghanistan in order to support the communist government there that the CIA was trying to take down. Then the CIA drew in the Soviets and worked them over by aiding the guerrillas.


Because for one, Russia has a world-class navy, army and airforce. The US has never really engaged in an equivalent army before.


And the US wouldn't even be able to achieve air supremacy from Russian SAMs alone. S-400 > F-22.
Yep do you know why we hire mercs?

Called the modern times was that very era with the first cars
Today the present is called the modern era

Ever heard of the black cross mercenaries?
They are virtually non existent only 500 people are in this group and they are the heavily est trained of any soldiers. They cost 6 million for every hour they are in another country.
US is in Afghanistan to maintain a strategic foothold on oil assets in the region, because the US has a massive reliance on middle eastern oil.
Glad you know the truth

So we both have the same intentions of being the only power with something?

and Germany kicked ass but they weren't equivalent?

And? one nuke to Moscow looks to me like a earthquake collapses mountain if it is hallowed out

SAMS block cruise missiles and smart bombs???

We love your country to much to invade maybe annex it but not much more. We would only annex it for your oil and or wood


I realize i was being a jerk earlier and apologize for that i was being immature. #ing patriotism.
Lets just have debates about this now?

edit on 1-12-2010 by trentyh because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I never said Russians will come out on top. I said they will have the capability to strike the Americans back just as bad, because you (and others) seem to assume that the US can just nuke Russia without serious consequences.

Sorry, Gus. I never said that. And most posts here seem to agree; a nuclear war isn't going to have any winners.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And the US does target civilians. All the time, in fact, in every war they've been in. However, they call it "collateral damage" when they intentionally bomb civilian infrastructure in the middle of cities.

So, it's safe to live in NYC, or LA, or Detriot, because the Russians don't have a single missile targeted against those cities, since they are mainly civilian population centers? Once again, you're wrong. The Russians targeted every major city in the US, just as the US has all the Russian cities under the gun.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And depleted uranium use appears to me as an attack on every single human (civilian, insurgent or coalition) in the Middle East.

Russians have had DU ammo since the 1970's. The US and UK are the only ones to have admitted using it.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Obviously the US would nuke Russian urban populations in such an event. I'm not saying Russia wouldn't be nuking American population centers either.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
American soldiers are killing Afghans and Iraqis because that is what their hearts dictate them to do? The American elite pull the strings and American soldiers shoot as ordered. No human has it in their heart to kill people who aren't even a threat to them.

What were the Soviet Soldiers thinking when they were killing Afghanis?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The USSR and the USA had treaties limiting testing, development and armament of nuclear weapons. The UN almost passed a nuclear weapon abolishment treaty.... but then Bush took over with his neo-conservative government. The US then dropped out of most of the treaties. US started developing and testing new generations of nuclear weapons, including space-based weapon platforms. US also started pushing for anti-ballistic missile shields, which is against the ABM Treaty that the US dropped out of (ABM shields help first strike capabilities).

Well some believe the "Testing and Developing" phase started back in the 80s through the 1990s. aka SDI

Under the administration of President Bill Clinton in 1993, its name was changed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and its emphasis was shifted from national missile defense to theater missile defense; and its scope from global to more regional coverage. It was never truly developed or deployed, though certain aspects of SDI research and technologies paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today. BMDO was renamed to the Missile Defense Agency in 2002. This article covers defense efforts under the SDIO.

Space-related defense research and testing remains heavily-budgeted to this day, irrespective of the program names, operative/reporting organizations, politics, or reports to the contrary in the press.[citation needed] Although it is difficult to compile actual spending totals across the complete spectrum of space-based defense programs (including classified "off-budget" "black projects"), the U.S. has certainly invested well over $100 billion on "SDI" and follow-on programs, and holds a commanding lead over all current or potential future adversaries in the realm of space technology/warfare.[citation needed]

Test Date 04/25/89


1990


The deployment phase started under Clinton and continued with Bush's watch.

At this point in history all the major super powers are eyeing the natural resources of Africa. The rest of the world can be taken over later.

reply to post by fredcall


agreed. However i would rather conquer the middle east.plenty of oil.However oil prices are going to increase by 900% or more in 30 years. A war than will most likely go nuclear or gods hammer. Gods hammer is supposedly a leaked black project that used dirt, ice, and rock to create a blast equal to 5 nuclear weapons whether or not this is real i do not know. However right now is probably an all time low in political fighting. Further more the USA is mobilizing the government to create a system to pay our debt to other countries. We only owe china 824 billion which is a lot less than i expected we owe Asia alot of money as we do Europe but Europe also owes us bonds.

USA has already taken over the world financially as some guy posted earlier a quite by donald trump "when you owe the bank a dollar the bank owns you when you owe the bank a billion dollars you own the bank. So if the USA went to war we would use that against other countries by stating fund us or we wont pay you back.

If i made a mistake in factual data correct me.

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
The US can barely hold down cities in Iraq.. what makes you think they can dominate every single country?
Now if you're talking about nukes...diff story.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by MurrayTORONTO]

You are comparing apples to oranges, all the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to very unconventional warfare, look at how fast we toppled the Iraqi Military. I personally think that we could take over the world if we really desired to, now I think we would run into difficulty with Russia and more so China but with the use of chemical, bio, and neutron bombs we could take them over easily IMHO with minimal damage to resources/ infrastructure. Not to mention if we wanted to take over the world I believe we would be MUCH less concerned with collateral damage and thus would not have the same problems with unconventional warfare. Keep in mind I am not advocating this just merely stating that I believe it to be possible.

Imagine what we are debating if this ever happened the US would be overwhelmed and i think the general public would push for a nuclear attack or threat, Russia may have the most nukes but not the most usable ones. In this process the USA would bring back every single missile defense program and be able to hold off like 90% of nuclear weapons thus showing an end to humanity as we know it. Will the USA survive? Only 20% of it maybe because once nuclear winter sets in we can not rely on our food stockpiles. Conventionally half of the USA will be drafted into the military rivaling the worlds army. We would still lose. Due to being cut off from supplies.

reply to post by trentyh


Are you still making stuff up?

Russia doesn't have more usable nuclear missiles?

"The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, Britain 200, France 350, India 80, and Pakistan 90. North Korea is confirmed as having nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many (a common estimate is between 1 and 10). Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons. NATO has stationed 480 US nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey, with several other countries in pursuit of an arsenal of their own.[13]"
Wikipedia - Nuclear Warfare

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by trentyh

 

Are you still making stuff up?

Russia doesn't have more usable nuclear missiles?

"The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, Britain 200, France 350, India 80, and Pakistan 90. North Korea is confirmed as having nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many (a common estimate is between 1 and 10). Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons. NATO has stationed 480 US nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey, with several other countries in pursuit of an arsenal of their own.[13]"
Wikipedia - Nuclear Warfare

wikipedia is great for sure.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


watch as i change the amount of nuclear weapons that Russia has to half a million will you then say that Russia has that many? Wikipedia is the best you can come up with. Earlier someone said the pro USA people on here bit more than they could chew now this is not a good example but now they all left and were still here. Sorta like our military. Ever heard of H.I.T.S.? its a old old old former black project that releases the 2nd most powerful blast except nuclear. The USA has plenty of these weapons.

The original question was could we take over the world?
answer: yes
way: nuke everyone before they nuke us than wait out the nuclear winter and recolonize it.
therefore every other argument made will result in 90% of the worlds population dead and 99% of the us citizens,





My prediction of the future when the USA pays their debt which they will a new system is being made for that at the moment. Were gonna be more powerful than every what doesnt kill you makes you stronger.

Originally posted by trentyh
question was could we take over the world?
answer: yes
way: nuke everyone before they nuke us than wait out the nuclear winter and recolonize it.
therefore every other argument made will result in 90% of the worlds population dead and 99% of the us citizens,

*facepalm*

You know, I once briefly met someone who thought they knew everything about the world. He theorized that the rich will hide underground in bunkers for a few years while the poor will kill each other off on the surface. Then he said that the rich will come back to the surface and start over.

I think his theory was just as baseless and garbage as yours.

As for Wikipedia, I rarely use it but you do realize that for specific information like that, that it is all referenced from official sources, right? Wikipedia's summaries, especially on nuclear weapons, are not made up by biased people like yourself, and if they are, then there's millions of other people willing to correct the information.

And I gave the wikipedia quote to you just to add some substance to my own post. Any idiot with the least amount of experience in nuclear affairs knows full well that the Soviets developed way more nukes than the Americans. We even studied that in high school.

Please excuse me as I haven't read this thread in its entirety, however its an interesting subject and I have thought about it many times being an American and all.

Ultimately the United States government in its seemingly infinite power is controlled by its civilian population and also gets its troops from that pool of people, who are the husbands, wives, brothers and sisters of all our military personal who cycle in and out of the military at relatively short intervals compared to some other countries. Any attempt at massive violent action on the part of the government would be quickly negated by the civilian population, who are in reality very compassionate compared to other peoples. I was in the military and I believe if anything like this were to happen the large majority of our troops would turn against the government in favor of their families, the government is us after all, in a strange way of thinking. That's not saying that the powers that be could not do it very slowly and subtly, which they may be doing right now.

The United States is the most powerful economic, cultural and political influence in the world by far though, and for all practical purposes we are beginning to 'run the world' in a sense already, many individuals in some countries currently want the United States to take the reigns as the world leader, right now only being the world policeman to the dismay and at the expense of a few Arab states. A lot of people hate us, and even though they are ridiculously primitive and insane for the most part, most educated members of other societies see that we are trying our best and have a sense of morals about us on even a national level. Ironically, like which was said on the first page, a lot of people from other countries think we want to rule the world, when in fact most Americans could care less and don't want the trouble or responsibility.

All social considerations aside, I believe that we definitely have the hardware to achieve it. US military budget is something like 630 billion a year, far more than even second place on the list and the US was rolling out Mach 6 aircraft and prototype laser defense systems decades and decades ago, there is no telling what kind of aces the American military could be holding in their sleeves by now, for all we know the American homeland could already be impervious to a massive nuclear ICBM attack, possibly the entire world (from orbit?). No one really even cares about spending much money on a military budget anymore because the US military makes it irrelevant and futile. I would be willing to bet a lot, if not all, of the UFOs that people see nowadays are actually classified American military aircraft.

I think it's pretty unlikely, they can't control Iraq or Afghanistan with superior firepower and technology. The only option would be to burn the global population off the planet with their vast stock of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons........ then after waiting many, many years they can wage a war of conquest against rats and cockroaches. Manifest Destiny fulfilled!

This whole thread is a joke, my guess is there are no US participants just a bunch of US hating French Canadians masquerading as Merkahns to get them a worse reputation, the US couldn't conquer and occupy the ultra weak 5 axis of evil nations and now they think they could conquer and occupy Europe and all of Asia, what pathetic thinking.

You must have had great fun Dimitri

Originally posted by Thepreye
This whole thread is a joke, my guess is there are no US participants just a bunch of US hating French Canadians masquerading as Merkahns to get them a worse reputation, the US couldn't conquer and occupy the ultra weak 5 axis of evil nations and now they think they could conquer and occupy Europe and all of Asia, what pathetic thinking.

You must have had great fun Dimitri

By the way I'm French Canadian and take offense to your derogatory and ignorant comment, Osti de cave de tabarnak!( Try translating that with google....Chris de plein de marde de calisse) Now...If you are not going to be a productive member of this discussion I strongly suggest that you crawl back under that pile of # you were so comfortable in !


Now for the subject at hand. It is very unlikely that the U.S. could hold it might over the world without key allies and I really don't think that this could happen, specially when it comes to the middle East.

reply to post by Maddogkull


what if the World doesn't want America ?
so many people and country's they pissed off it seems to me they will loose that battle.

reply to post by MrAnnunaki



The only reason America ( U.S. ) would be invaded and taken over by some other super power would be for growth and expanding of population. Nothing comes out of America anymore.