 |
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999 time: 05:21
|
|
And dynamite, matches, lighthouses, about 20% of the elements, monkey wrenches, tetrapaks, ball bearings, centrifuge separators, zippers, resin tooth fillings... the list goes on and on...
I did find it interesting that you remembered Saab but not Volvo thought...
Oh, and perhaps the most important one from many people here: Europa Universalis 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
thats why i said it doh!
finnish/swedish funny pissmatch and all?
BAH!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
I think it's clear that any honest person would have to say the US would win, hands down.
Sure, large nations like Russia or China might survive (probably would survive) as independent nations, barring the use of nukes, but they would be left with no significant combat power outside of weak regional forces.
Winning WW3 would not mean conquering the world. It would simply mean eliminating the viable threat any other country can pose against your nation, and retaining or gaining control of strategic resources, such as oil.
The first is easy for the US, because outside of nukes, not even every country in the world combined presents a viable military threat to us.
The second is a bit tougher, but there would be no problem seizing all the oil we would need from Western Hemisphere sources (Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, etc.), and although we would still be short on certain resources, we would certainly be much better off than anyone else would be.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Heresson
I doubt that US would be able to lead a long gruelling war.
Two sky-scrapers destroyed on its territory and You are already enraged. A single heavily bombarded American city would probably make You back off from the war. |
You don't understand us Americans, do you? Your argument sounds just like the ignorant Japanese some 60 years ago. They thought that Americans were wimps and would sue peace for after that little Pearl Harbor trick. Wrong. If American people perceive a need for getting the revenge, the country will fight until the bitter end to have the aggressor nailed.
We lost the Vietnam War because those damn smart North Vietnamese managed to paint our own government as the aggressor. Had they tried pull off something like 9/11, we would have mobilized everything to beat them into the ground, literally.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DarthVeda
Excluding a nuke fight...
The USA would win hands down. The Military-Industrial capacity of the United States is completely unmatched along with our technical capability.
Canada and Mexico would be pushovers, and any attempted land invasion of North America would easily be surpressed by the unbridled might of the American Navy and Air Force. Any countries stupid enough to "gang up" on America would be brutally tought a lesson from what would become not just one B-2, but hundreds, and not just one F-22, but thousands. With our already 100+ world class Nuclear Submarines, we would have total control of both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Once all the gang-bangers had been severely dealt with, and soundly defeated, the U.S. could smash each and every other country at will. Not necessarily from the ground either... a simple aerial assault from the U.S. would be enough to send most countries into the stone age.
Don't even balk at what I'm saying. No country in the world can field the amount of long-range firepower that the U.S. can. The E.U. doesn't even have one long-range bomber save England (I think they gave theirs up in favor of subs). And Russia? Their fighters and bombers would never make it over here in one piece. (If the U.S. went to war with Canada, the first thing secured by U.S. commandos would be the NORAD radar and early warning installations).
Not to mention that every country in the world is entirely outclassed by our ability to wage war in the vacuum of space.
Any argument to the contrary of what I have said is just wishful thinking. |
Without nukes or bio or chemical warfare, in other words in a completely 'conventional' war, I agree with you absolutely. But a WWIII would not be conventional, i garuntee it, unfotunately .....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu
And dynamite, matches, lighthouses, about 20% of the elements, monkey wrenches, tetrapaks, ball bearings, centrifuge separators, zippers, resin tooth fillings... the list goes on and on...
I did find it interesting that you remembered Saab but not Volvo thought...
Oh, and perhaps the most important one from many people here: Europa Universalis |
The US makes everything you do but 50 times the quantity. Our technilogical/ industrial capacity will only be able to be touched by a few nations, like china in a few decades perhaps, after they close the tech gap and develope their country alot more.
Oh Yeah, and the US is the producer of probably 80% of your favorite video games.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Heresson
I doubt that US would be able to lead a long gruelling war.
Two sky-scrapers destroyed on its territory and You are already enraged. A single heavily bombarded American city would probably make You back off from the war. |
SAY WHAT!?
The US could fight any gruelling war to the finish, we only have to be mobilized as a nation. I think WWII is a testament to that. Vietnam was a very controversial war, and was not supported by the majority of the nation by around 1969. That is the only reason why we pulled out. And we did lose objectively, by pulling out, but militarily we dominated. 57000 Amercian deaths - very Tragic, but no where near the 400,000 casualties of WWII. Vietnam had an estimated 2 million deaths (including civilians). If you calculate the kill/death ratio, it is enormously in the US favor, and also it must be taken into consideration that the US was not fully mobilized for the Vietnam war (in other words, we did not throw nearly our full weight into it like wwii) and the technilogical gap was not as far between vietnam and the US as the gap is between the US and most countries like it is today.
we are enraged to war by the knock down of the WTC, not running like scared dogs, my friend . And a bombarded US city was a scenario everyone prepared for during the Cold War, and it would just strengthen our resolve to turn our enemy into pulp. It is human nature to do this if nationalism is present, as can be seen in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Every death makes each side just want to kill each other more.
Kman
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Heresson
Vietnam war wasn't taking place on American groung either... Vietnameese, thanks to your style of leading the war experienced very big casualities (I don't think it's a reason to boast that You killed so many civilians), but still they won. If America lost 2mln citizens... |
WWIII wouldnt take place on American ground either. See we have good ol Canada to the North, and then Mexico to the South. And then on the East and West we have two massive oceans. We have a very nice strategic position, that is why the US has never known major civilian casualties, and it only ever will in a war where weapons of mass destruction are used. Again, losing civilians will just trengthens our resolve.
I wasnt boasting of kiling civilians. I think killing civilians is horrible, but in total war it is just a fact when your practicing strategic bobming. The US didnt intentionally or maliciously kill Vietnamese civilians, they were just the ones working in the factories or trade lanes (or nearby these areas) where arms where being brought in to the country and into the war. I was just stating the brutal fact that in total war, where civilian deaths happen often, comparing the kill/death ration of North Vietnam with the US, the US won the Vietnam War militarily (but we ultimately lost the war, because we pulled out - im not denying this fact)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
well said heresson. i think if one american city is bombed, americans will surrender the second later.
they lost vietnam never fought a real war and cry like babies because of 2 buildings going down.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|