The United States versus The World

[Darklyre]

Russian military tech at US level? What the fuck are you smoking? They can barely keep their nuclear sub fleet afloat, much less work on newer technology. The USSR has a chance against the US, but it'd lose out on industrial capacity before it ever truly made a difference. Germany in its prime did not have the technological and number advantage that the US currently enjoys. And AA defenses mean almost nothing against things like sub-launched cruise missiles.

[Banhammer]

And for all those intrested, if america would turn to be dependent on their own resources, then they have two months to win this war, for the alascan and texan deposits combined can only offer that much. Far less, if canada hijacks alasca.
And this before katrina blew up the new orleans platforms...

[shrike2003]

Japan doesnt have an army.


Well, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are rather capable ( I know, I helped train some of them), but would go down REAL hard :P

[Dark Ascendant]

4. We don't have the money to fund such a war. Look at us now we are fighting in Iraq, but we have to barrow other people's money to fund the war. In a war this size the US will go bankrupt in a couple trying to fund it.

So, I say if we to fight this war we will lose.

That's because the US is occupying Iraq. The actual cost of invading and taking over doesn't even comparing.

[Banhammer]

So if the us can take over the world, why haven't we already?

[Flamefang]

Russian military tech at US level? What the fuck are you smoking? They can barely keep their nuclear sub fleet afloat, much less work on newer technology. The USSR has a chance against the US, but it'd lose out on industrial capacity before it ever truly made a difference. Germany in its prime did not have the technological and number advantage that the US currently enjoys. And AA defenses mean almost nothing against things like sub-launched cruise missiles.

Do you have any proof for your ridiculous statement? The AK 47 was one of the most successful weapons, and is still more reliable, more powerful and has faster firing rate than the M 16. Do you have any proof that the Russians are not developing secret weapons? If Europe and Russia supply china with weaponry, than there you have the strongest ground force. And where is the proof that U.S' navy and air force is stronger than the who world's put together? The whole world would easily produce more aircrafts/ships or even carriers, since they could easily share funding. With that, the world greatly outnumbers U.S in ground air and water. Then they invade in a weak point on the security around the continent/U.S since the navy would HAVE to be stretched out for any sufficient security. Then they invade the land and annihilate the major cities shredding the economy. Once they get to land, its pretty much over for the U.S. Or you can do something even easier, drop the ground troop off on Canada and invade the U.S from up north but from a few diffrent points. The world's productivity makes the U.S' look like a joke simply because of the numbers. Believing that the U.S could do anything to the whole world is simply ridiculous. You make it seem like the rest of the world is using kitchen knifes and rocks. The AK 47 is designed to be a weapon for the civilian, and thus it is easy and cheap to manufacture. Europe definitely has military technology around the level of the U.S. Just because they don't go around invading defenseless and weak countries doesn't mean that they don't have the means to.

[Darklyre]

Do you have any proof for your ridiculous statement? The AK 47 was one of the most successful weapons, and is still more reliable, more powerful and has faster firing rate than the M 16. Do you have any proof that the Russians are not developing secret weapons? If Europe and Russia supply china with weaponry, than there you have the strongest ground force. And where is the proof that U.S' navy and air force is stronger than the who world's put together? The whole world would easily produce more aircrafts/ships or even carriers, since they could easily share funding. With that, the world greatly outnumbers U.S in ground air and water. Then they invade in a weak point on the security around the continent/U.S since the navy would HAVE to be stretched out for any sufficient security. Then they invade the land and annihilate the major cities shredding the economy. Once they get to land, its pretty much over for the U.S. Or you can do something even easier, drop the ground troop off on Canada and invade the U.S from up north but from a few diffrent points. The world's productivity makes the U.S' look like a joke simply because of the numbers. Believing that the U.S could do anything to the whole world is simply ridiculous. You make it seem like the rest of the world is using kitchen knifes and rocks. The AK 47 is designed to be a weapon for the civilian, and thus it is easy and cheap to manufacture. Europe definitely has military technology around the level of the U.S. Just because they don't go around invading defenseless and weak countries doesn't mean that they don't have the means to.

The US has 21 aircraft carriers, half of which are supercarriers of 85k tons or greater. The rest of the world has 13 aircraft carriers, none of which are supercarriers. The US has enough destroyers, cruisers, and submarines to fully defend these carriers as well.

Second, how do you propose to get these ground troops of yours to the US mainland without getting past these carrier battlegroups? The US has the largest undersea sonar and overland radar coverage in the world. As far as I know, there aren't any troopships capable of stealth movement, and even if they were, they'd have to be escorted. You can't land a sizeable army with a submarine group, since they have no way of actually reaching land beyond swimming or getting launched out the torpedo bays.

Third, the Europe has the technology level of the US, yes. What it lacks are sheer numbers. You seem to think that they can suddenly turn all their production facilities into arms industries overnight. Guess what: even with a full war-time economy and 24/7 shifts, it takes YEARS to get even a single, small aircraft carrier out. You can't hide these places either, since the drydocks and such needed are huge. China lacks the navy needed to get over here. Russia may have cheap arms, but again, no method of getting past the ridiculous naval and air superiority advantage of the US. You could even give Russia and China all of Europe's navy and air force, and they STILL wouldn't be able to get over here due to the ship and plane disparity.

Don't believe me? Let's see here: a single carrier battlegroup has a reach of hundreds of miles around. Place them close enough to land and it could even be a thousand miles, depending on plane complements. You could toss a single battlegroup in the Carribean, and no one would ever be able to get past in that direction. Toss two more on the Atlantic side and they can deepstrike all the way to the middle of Canada. Two more on the Pacific coastline and one in Hawaii and you'd block everything from that direction. What does that leave? Considering the US has ELEVEN such battlegroups, you'd have 5 left over for offensive actions. That's a little less than half of the US' carriers, which is still enough to roughly match the rest of the world's carriers.

This has absolutely nothing to do with US pride, or jingoism, or anything. It's a logical look at cold hard facts. The US currently outguns damn near every other nation in the world combined, and no amount of wishing or flaming is going to change that.

[Sengoku]

Do you have any proof for your ridiculous statement? The AK 47 was one of the most successful weapons, and is still more reliable, more powerful and has faster firing rate than the M 16. Do you have any proof that the Russians are not developing secret weapons? If Europe and Russia supply china with weaponry, than there you have the strongest ground force. And where is the proof that U.S' navy and air force is stronger than the who world's put together? The whole world would easily produce more aircrafts/ships or even carriers, since they could easily share funding. With that, the world greatly outnumbers U.S in ground air and water. Then they invade in a weak point on the security around the continent/U.S since the navy would HAVE to be stretched out for any sufficient security. Then they invade the land and annihilate the major cities shredding the economy. Once they get to land, its pretty much over for the U.S. Or you can do something even easier, drop the ground troop off on Canada and invade the U.S from up north but from a few diffrent points. The world's productivity makes the U.S' look like a joke simply because of the numbers. Believing that the U.S could do anything to the whole world is simply ridiculous. You make it seem like the rest of the world is using kitchen knifes and rocks. The AK 47 is designed to be a weapon for the civilian, and thus it is easy and cheap to manufacture. Europe definitely has military technology around the level of the U.S. Just because they don't go around invading defenseless and weak countries doesn't mean that they don't have the means to.

strongest ground force?

what can you do with that many ground FORCE if you cant even send the troops into US? LOL please think before you talk.

[Flamefang]

strongest ground force?

what can you do with that many ground FORCE if you cant even send the troops into US? LOL please think before you talk.

Are you blind or ignorant or simply really stupid? Oh yeah, minimum 500 million trained soldiers, backed up with 1-4 billion civilian soldiers armed with a wide array of weapons. The most effective would be AK 47s because they are cheaper, reliable, strong and accurate at a decent range. Sure a lot would die, but 4.5 billion vs 200 million? Slaughter. You arm the trained soldiers with top of the line weaponry and RPGs. And you can put a portion of them in tanks. Like i said, drop them off in from Canada, Mexico (if the U.S attempt to defend the whole North America with their fleet, well, thats just plain retarded since TROTW can march in any wear then since their fleet would be ridiculously stretched out/i don't think its even possible to defend that much area(i don't even think it would be easy defending U.S via water)) or a weak point in the U.S defense. Heck, with the kind of fleet the world will posses, they could crush any pathetic, stretched-out-across-the-border-navy that the U.S has. If they focus the navy in one spot, the world goes around, they stretch it thin, the world rapes them. TROTW has plenty of options of easily defeating the U.S with sheer numbers, power and productivity. And Russian military technology is pretty decent, they have a military vehicle that could kill 6 military plains using some kind of missile attacks. And it could kill a stealth bomber as well because it has some kind of strong radar on it. You could mass these to get rid of the air force. Or you could mass plains and get rid of the air force. Or you can mass aircraft carriers and get rid of the air force.

[KLoWn]

World wins.

[Darklyre]

What in the FUCK are you talking about?

ALL OF THE WORLD'S MAJOR NAVIES AND AIR FORCES PUT TOGETHER ARE STILL OUTNUMBERED BY THE US.

We have 21 carriers to their 13. We could literally shadow every single carrier they have with one of ours and STILL have enough left over to blockade half a goddamn continent.

And before you whine about how carriers aren't troop transports remember this:

1. Troop transports require air cover.
2. Naval air cover requires carriers.

Get that through your thick fucking skull before you talk again.

[Flamefang]

What in the FUCK are you talking about?

ALL OF THE WORLD'S MAJOR NAVIES AND AIR FORCES PUT TOGETHER ARE STILL OUTNUMBERED BY THE US.

We have 21 carriers to their 13. We could literally shadow every single carrier they have with one of ours and STILL have enough left over to blockade half a goddamn continent.

And before you whine about how carriers aren't troop transports remember this:

1. Troop transports require air cover.
2. Naval air cover requires carriers.

Get that through your thick fucking skull before you talk again.

Are you a moron? The U.S navy is stretched protecting the borders, right? If its not, go around them. Use your minuscule brain. There is no way that all the carriers can be everywhere at once, nor can they teleport! And where in the world did you get the 13-21 numbers? Saying that the WHOLE DAMN WORLD'S air force and navy is smaller than ONE COUNTRIES' is stupid (this isn't about carriers). Can you show me PROOF? Until I see certain proof of the numbers, arguing about hypothesis is ridiculous. Sure, the U.S most likely has the largest army compared to a SINGLE nation, but to the WORLD'S? Can you even think? And, who says the world can't simply build more carriers/ships/military aircraft/tanks, outnumbering the U.S to an unbelievable extent? The world has 6 billion potential workers, U.S has less than 300 million, and a large number of them would be away simply patrolling the borders, so its probably less than 200. They can increase their numbers FAR easier. And, they can make a fleet of submarines which would be armed with torpedoes or something else, which would crush the carriers. This is easily done, unless ALL the carriers are in one location. If they ARE in one location, invading the U.S would be INSANELY easy, since all you have to do is AVOID the group. There are so many different ways for the world to turn U.S in to ash, that saying something otherwise is greatly uninformed/under thought, or moronic.

[Metric]

The US would lose imo due to their troops being spread out too thinly (they're already being stretched and that's just with dep[loyment in Iraq and Afghanistan).

After a brutal war of attrition, the world would win. Also bear in mind that US supplies (especially oil) would eventually be throttled, regardless of rationing, and a ground invasion could be mounted from South America through Mexico.

[Nanatsurugi]

I honestly hope, bith will fail.

I am from The World, so I'd like US agression freakin die in sufferings, but I know that World here is rather shitty, so it doesn't deserve to win too.

[Kubisa]

Kim Jong-il solos

Due to the thinning out of forces and lack of easily accessible supply's for the US I can't imagine the world losing this one. No way does the US have enough power to defeat the world without blowing the entire thing up (though they'd probably claim that as a victory anyway).

[Banhammer]

were the 21 carriers to be on the moove, then our window of war of two months would have been choped of to one. Are we defeating 6 bilion people with 300k in about thity days? Can we really defeat an entire USA worth of people in one day, without nukes? Then what the fuck are doing 6 years in the desert?

Plus, with the hacker levels I've heard of in the black hat convention living in Northen Europe, I don't know if we could even use them bombs...

These kids are riging their elementary school grades already...<-- manner of god damned speech, you sound like a politician on meth, jeez

[Arishem]

This is getting more and more ridiculous. America doesn't have to kill six billion people; it only has to eliminate their main modes of transportation overhere, which is easy with our gigantic navy and airforce. We can destroy everyone else's will to fight by raining chemical and biological weapons down into other countries.

You also continually show a lack of understanding about the difference between total war and modern war. If we were still waging war based based on the former, Iraq wouldn't even exist anymore. Look at the picture Darklyre provided. There would be nothing left except gigantic craters and a few remains of buildings here and there.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/0f/350px-Wesel_1945.jpg
OMG, they got teh uber child hax0rz? Yet again you bring up a totally irrelevant and fictional point. First it was Germany with their magical cloaking technology. Now it's Northern Europe with daycare super hackers. What else will you dream up? Somebody move this to the joke battledome.

[Crimson Dragoon]

Japan gets five of their most effiminate looking teenage boys to pilot experimental mechas. Those mechas would then be equipped with Germany's cloaking devices.

[lavi69]

america gets raped! this is the dumbest question i have ever heard. america couldn't stand a chance

[Arishem]

Japan gets five of their most effiminate looking teenage boys to pilot experimental mechas. Those mechas would then be equipped with Germany's cloaking devices.
╔╗╔═╦╗
║╚╣║║╚╗
╚═╩═╩═╝
Don't forget the child super hackers who are providing them intel. The sad thing is that I'm sure some here think that is possible. The funny thing is that, asides from Darkmoogle, none of the other people suggesting that America will lose can support their points.
Edit: It's not just the fact that we 21 carriers to the world's 13. Most of our ships are twice as big. The British CVF's, which are supposed to be the second largest are not even in production yet.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/584CAAE8-8B39-4271-86E8-86320C7804B7/0/Carrier3_761x437.jpg

[Crimson Dragoon]

╔╗╔═╦╗
║╚╣║║╚╗
╚═╩═╩═╝
Don't forget the child super hackers who are providing them intel. The sad thing is that I'm sure some here think that is possible. The funny too, is that asides from Darkmoogle, none of the other people suggesting that America will loose can support their points.Edit: It's not just the fact that we 21 carriers to the world's 13. Most of our ships are twice as big. The British CVF's, which are supposed to be the second largest are not even in production yet.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/584CAAE8-8B39-4271-86E8-86320C7804B7/0/Carrier3_761x437.jpg

[/QUOTE]

Oh God, I think we have a new mecha anime on the rise! US versus The World! Ham-fisted political commentary, bishounen child-prodigies, and stereotypical comments about Americans! Perfect!!!

[JayDotess]

U.S would win, we still have the biggest bombs (-nukes), airforce, and navy. Fancy amoured too.

[Banhammer]

we can't use our bigass nukes without having the rest of the owrld using their nukes too, and there are fare less targets to aim here. Our generals do not know much, but they do know that much..
And again, if we use all of our forces, knowing we have no more outside resources, do you think we could pull this off in about one month? 300 thousand people fighting 6 billion? Madness? Well, sure as hell it aint sparta...

[Arishem]

Six billion people? Don't make me laugh. Not even a small fraction of that number can even make it over here, and America can easily destroy any oceanic transportation they have. Also, many of those people live in countries with little to no resources or no access to the sea, so what imagined contribution do you think they'll make? No, it's not Sparta. They had to fight their enemies face to face. The rest of the world's troops in this scenario will die before they even make it to the battlefield. I'm done with you. You've made it abundantly clear that there's no logic in your arguments.

[Crimson Dragoon]

Somewhere, some person just got an inspiration for a new anime from this thread.

[blacklusterseph004]

With Dio controlling The World, the US can't win...

[KLoWn]

Sweden has EVA's, the fuck you gonna do?? :wussfight

[Flamefang]

This is getting more and more ridiculous. America doesn't have to kill six billion people; it only has to eliminate their main modes of transportation overhere, which is easy with our gigantic navy and airforce. We can destroy everyone else's will to fight by raining chemical and biological weapons down into other countries.

You also continually show a lack of understanding about the difference between total war and modern war. If we were still waging war based based on the former, Iraq wouldn't even exist anymore. Look at the picture Darklyre provided. There would be nothing left except gigantic craters and a few remains of buildings here and there.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/0f/350px-Wesel_1945.jpg
OMG, they got teh uber child hax0rz? Yet again you bring up a totally irrelevant and fictional point. First it was Germany with their magical cloaking technology. Now it's Northern Europe with daycare super hackers. What else will you dream up? Somebody move this to the joke battledome.

Main mode of transportation? With what? Please tell me how the U.S fleet can be everywhere at once to protect the whole border, AND defeat a navy and air force that are bigger than its own? Do they use magical powers to make them disappear? Do they nuke them? Do they make Chuck Norris destroy them (damn, thats actually plausible). Rain chemicals? Wow, and you assume that the U.S is the only country which can use biological weapons? It seems people think less these days, and can't read that well, since i have already explained this. I doubt anyone in the right mind thinks that Iraq has any relevance. But oh no, the U.S has to fight an enemy with actual soldiers, tanks, ships, and aircraft this time, and each out number their own. Unless the U.S uses their 1337 hax0r skillz and makes Chuck Norris kill everything, they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. At this point in time, we might as well assume that the U.S is outdone/matched in practically every way.

Military tech- Beaten/Matched (Europe, Russia, Japan, (espionage if needed))
Numbers- Beaten
Military- Beaten (This is the whole damn world! Surely there are at LEAST 500 million TRAINED soldiers)
Tanks- Beaten (whole worlds tanks together, and you can easily manufacture with the raw manpower the world has)
Ships- Matched/Behind in the beginning (British navy, the worlds navy. Not sure of this one, but again, its damn easy for the whole world to manufacture more ships, enough to make the U.S navy look like a bunch of girls in canoes)
Aircraft- Beaten/Matched (The whole damn world! Again, cake making more to blow them out of the sky)
Aircraft carriers- Behind in the beginning (Making more should not be that difficult)

And this is simply the material. The U.S is literally open from ALL sides! They have no hope of defending the whole border effectively against a navy which would easily dwarf them. They have three options. 1 spread their forces across the border, making it absolute cake to simply march in on their land. 2 Put all of their navy in a few spots, which would leave a lot of area open, and the groups vulnerable. 3 Put all of their navy together. Simply avoid this location and this should be no problem either. As you can see, the U.S simply has NO GOOD CHOICES. If you invade, bye bye home world. They got no chance. Everything they can do, the world can do much better and faster. The only 2 REAL choices are to Nuke the world, or release chuck. Both result in the raping of the whole planet, leaving no survivors.

[mystictrunks]

Japan has military technology ? Don't they only have old Russian planes and tanks?

[Flamefang]

Japan has military technology ? Don't they only have old Russian planes and tanks?

I'm saying Japan might have military technology due to their general advancement over the world. In case they don't, given the world's resources, they could invent something. There wasn't a need in the past, now there is. There is also funding and manpower. And again, espionage would be easy. Who knows what kind of technology Europe has. I would say that the world's military tech is on par with the U.S. What do you think the world has been doing over the years? Just because U.S flashes their guns and attacks incredibly weak countries doesn't mean that they posses superior technology

[mystictrunks]

"They could invent something"

Wow. Japan's a chump when it come to military power to be honest. Everyone knows what kind of weapons Europe has, the U.S. still outguns them

[EvilMoogle]

Japan has military technology ? Don't they only have old Russian planes and tanks?

Actually Japan's forces are equipped essentially the same as the US.

But there's not very many of them.

@Trick Shot
Read carefully, the US does not have enough planes, bombs, or carriers to carpet bomb the whole world.

And before they could hit any major cities the GPS system would be down (because the rest of the world KNOWS the US can do this). That means that the pilots will have to fly lower and slower over the cities in order to aim manually. Which means they'll lose more planes to anti-aircraft fire.

And those carriers won't be very useful without planes on them, will they?

The initial setup makes this impossible for the World to lose. Let me explain: what percentage of US pilots can find the capital of Balarus on the map? How about while flying over Balarus before they run out of fuel and without a navsat? In order for the US to win, you're voting that they could as a matter of course.

[Flamefang]

"They could invent something"

Wow. Japan's a chump when it come to military power to be honest. Everyone knows what kind of weapons Europe has, the U.S. still outguns them

And proof of that is?... Because of course, you are the head of Europe's army and military research, and know everything that they are doing, right? Given current seen technology, Europe is not out gunned in anyway. In fact, the British tanks are considered the best in the world.

[lavi69]

are ppl using the iraq war as evidence for the usa to win this war??!? thats pretty dumb considering how shit they are doing in it. they were in the news again this week for killing more british soldiers!!

[Banhammer]

All of the best software passes from europe and then to the us. Unless you consider "windows" good...

[Tash]

Lol the war in Iraq is second only to Vietnam in putting Americas military forces to shame.

[Crimson Dragoon]

Of course, never mind that the soldiers are fighting in their enemies' terrain or that the enemy is willing to use civilians as shields or weapons. Yeah, those guys suck ass.

[Masaki]

US is part of the world.

World wins.

[Tash]

Of course, never mind that the soldiers are fighting in their enemies' terrain or that the enemy is willing to use civilians as shields or weapons. Yeah, those guys suck ass.

The fact that they are fighting in the enemies terrian getting killed and literally still scraping for more troops is why it's a shame.

[Arishem]

@Trick Shot
Read carefully, the US does not have enough planes, bombs, or carriers to carpet bomb the whole world.
You're assuming that they're going to use only conventional weapons. Carpet bombing isn't very efficient when we can just use biological weapons to much greater effect. The only limitation placed on this scenario was nukes. The weaponized diseases we "don't" have would spread across other continents like wild fire.

[Banhammer]

And then those desieases would all came back adn backfire on our asses, when they became airborne and imune to anything we can dish out to fight them with

[Flamefang]

Of course, never mind that the soldiers are fighting in their enemies' terrain or that the enemy is willing to use civilians as shields or weapons. Yeah, those guys suck ass.

Your right. I mean, the U.S soldiers only have tanks, M 16s, military experience and training, while the mighty Iraq has Molotovs, self made bombs, and weaponry bought from the U.S. And its Iraq's fault that the U.S invaded, because Iraq CLEARLY has a whole fleet of nuclear arms, which pose a threat to not only the U.S, but the whole world! Thank you U.S for stopping such a dangerous threat! And if you think Iraq is so mighty with their untrained civilians, why do you not simply get out of there? Thats right, Bush is the president. But surely this is not the fault of the U.S' citizens, who "DIDN'T" voted Bush for the second time... Oh wait...

[Arishem]

Airborne diseases still need hosts to spread the infection around. The title doesn't mean that they can waft across the ocean into the US. With the state of things, getting across our border will be as likely as winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning in the same day.

[Flamefang]

You're assuming that they're going to use only conventional weapons. Carpet bombing isn't very efficient when we can just use biological weapons to much greater effect. The only limitation placed on this scenario was nukes. The weaponized diseases we "don't" have would spread across other continents like wild fire.

And, again, you are saying that the who world doesn't have some kind of biological weapons, while the U.S does? Real smart...

[Azure Flame Kite]

Magneto wins

[Crimson Dragoon]

The US is massively holding themselves back in the Iraq "War". The concern for civilian losses is the reason. Christ, how many times does this have to be said!?

[Arishem]

And, again, you are saying that the who world doesn't have some kind of biological weapons, while the U.S does? Real smart...

So what? How are they going to get a significant amount of these weapons into the states? Again, you automatically assume other countries have the resources to create biological weapons on the same scale America has, when it was the United States and Russia who created most of them. The latter is no longer much of a threat. What, are they going to try and stock up after we've already pumped their lands full of contagions?

[Darklyre]

And, again, you are saying that the who world doesn't have some kind of biological weapons, while the U.S does? Real smart...

They have the weapons, but not the delivery systems. They'd need to get within firing range to use their missiles. We can literally launch them from home. Russia is pretty much the only country with missiles that have the range to hit us (China can hit Hawaii and MAYBE the West Coast), and Russia's infrastructure following the fall of the Soviet Union is terrible. Their missiles are literally rotting away in their silos because they can't pay for the upkeep needed to keep them in a usable state.

[Azure Flame Kite]

The real winner would be the Internet it's deleated files (which are never really) deleated will amass and take control of the Internet slowly spreading to all military tech and soon evolve so far as to created matter from the energy it has harnessed and that single creation will destroy all life as we know it, infuse the core with machines and ride through the cosmos slowly gaining more power and technology to take on God, and the ensuing battle will destroy all of existance.

(PM me for full story)

[Crimson Dragoon]

Oh yeah, M-16s aren't too useful in cramped spaces, and the same could be said for tanks. Plus no amount of military training can truly replicate the chaos of Iraq.

[Darklyre]

And proof of that is?... Because of course, you are the head of Europe's army and military research, and know everything that they are doing, right? Given current seen technology, Europe is not out gunned in anyway. In fact, the British tanks are considered the best in the world.

Doublepost, but I don't give a fuck because this guy's stupidity deserves a scathing response worthy of Pipboy.

TANKS DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

INFANTRY DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

PLANES DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

What do you need to get over here? That's right, a navy! WHICH THE US CURRENTLY OUTGUNS THE REST OF THE WORLD IN. BY ALMOST DOUBLE.

Go stick yourself with AIDS, you're about as useful to humanity as Paris Hilton and less entertaining to watch.

[Flamefang]

The US is massively holding themselves back in the Iraq "War". The concern for civilian losses is the reason. Christ, how many times does this have to be said!?

And did i not say that? And you know why they have to be careful? Because they started this war, with a country with a PATHETIC military. They didn't expect the citizens to resist having their land pumped dry of oil? Because surely, the U.S has found a whole crap load of weapons of mass destruction, and is still there to ensure they didn't miss any. Can you IMAGINE what would happen if it wasn't humane warfare? Iraq's demise over absolutely NO reason would cause an uproar that would go up U.S' ass so deep, they will be made handicapped. The citizens would go wild. The world would go wild. It won't even be U.S vs WORLD, more like Bush and blind patriots vs world and sane U.S citizens

[Azure Flame Kite]

honestly I believe that it depends entirely on how the world begins who starts the war under what scenario why and how

[Tash]

The US is massively holding themselves back in the Iraq "War". The concern for civilian losses is the reason. Christ, how many times does this have to be said!?

You sound like you don't want them to hold back. An all out assault to fight the war against "Terrrorism" would entail pretty much bombing general areas of Iraq. The war is futile because alot of Iraqis views have changed for the worse about america, and they don't intend to sit and around and do nothing, so basically, us taking more control of Iraq --->Angry Iraqis----> them taking action. I see this more as a war to turn Iraq into a colony than I do see it as a war on Terrorism.

[EvilMoogle]

You're assuming that they're going to use only conventional weapons. Carpet bombing isn't very efficient when we can just use biological weapons to much greater effect. The only limitation placed on this scenario was nukes. The weaponized diseases we "don't" have would spread across other continents like wild fire.

Oh, well if we're going to play the assumption game then the US loses to all the biological and chemical weapons other countries already have in place within the US borders.

If you can prove the US has substantial amounts of biological or chemical weapons, you can use them. But you can't just assume they have them (especially when by policy we don't).

[Flamefang]

So what? How are they going to get a significant amount of these weapons into the states? Again, you automatically assume other countries have the resources to create biological weapons on the same scale America has, when it was the United States and Russia who created most of them. The latter is no longer much of a threat. What, are they going to try and stock up after we've already pumped their lands full of contagions?

And you assume that Russia isn't a threat, because once again, you are the leader of Russia's and Europe's army and military research and know what they have been developing? Give me proof that Russia is not a threat. Give me proof that the rest of the world can't use biological weapons. And you are saying that the U.S has more resources and manpower than the rest of the world? The rest of the countries can easily create biological weaponry if they haven't already, which is highly unlikely. Saying that the U.S has and THE REST OF THE DAMN GLOBE DOESN'T isn't even simply misinformed, its down right idiotic. Present proof of this ridicules statement. Your saying U.S can, im saying that the world can better

[Arishem]

While we might not be able to hold out in the long run, we could kill the rest of the world's population before such could even occur with our bioweapons. The force they'd be able to muster afterwards would be pathetic. Planning for the day your enemy's resources runout is pointless when they've already decimated your people.

[Sylar]

The Martians win.

Now close this thread.

[Flamefang]

They have the weapons, but not the delivery systems. They'd need to get within firing range to use their missiles. We can literally launch them from home. Russia is pretty much the only country with missiles that have the range to hit us (China can hit Hawaii and MAYBE the West Coast), and Russia's infrastructure following the fall of the Soviet Union is terrible. Their missiles are literally rotting away in their silos because they can't pay for the upkeep needed to keep them in a usable state.

And you have proof of all of this? I can easily say that Russia has far supperior missile offense and defense than the U.S, but that doesn't make it so without evidence. Other countries have missiles, who says they don't have missile launching? Missiles without missile launching?

[Flamefang]

Oh yeah, M-16s aren't too useful in cramped spaces, and the same could be said for tanks. Plus no amount of military training can truly replicate the chaos of Iraq.

Then idunno, leave? Hmm? Simply, leave? You found no weapons of mass destruction, what are you still doing there?

[Tash]

The Martians win.

Now close this thread.

I change my mind I agree with him.

[Flamefang]

Doublepost, but I don't give a fuck because this guy's stupidity deserves a scathing response worthy of Pipboy.

TANKS DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

INFANTRY DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

PLANES DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

What do you need to get over here? That's right, a navy! WHICH THE US CURRENTLY OUTGUNS THE REST OF THE WORLD IN. BY ALMOST DOUBLE.

Go stick yourself with AIDS, you're about as useful to humanity as Paris Hilton and less entertaining to watch.

And you are pulling this "U.S navy double the world navy" where exactly? Your ass? Thought so. You must be blind since ive said it a hundred times, let me put it in words you can understand "world makes boats fast, boats good, soldiers go to boat" Sorry, i just can't seem to write at your standards, i've passed grade 2 too long to remember how to write that way...

[Arishem]

Oh, well if we're going to play the assumption game then the US loses to all the biological and chemical weapons other countries already have in place within the US borders.

If you can prove the US has substantial amounts of biological or chemical weapons, you can use them. But you can't just assume they have them (especially when by policy we don't).

Even if we didn't have any reserves, which is unlikely considering the American government's loyalty to such promises (look at the recent development of the bunker buster nuke), we easily have the resources to produce more and quickly. All the labs that produced them and their research still exists. Combine that with the deepstrike capability that the other countries lack, and this will be over really quick.

Flameflang, are you dense or something? Darklyre has already posted why Russia is no longer a threat multiple times in the last couple pages. They don't have any money! Maintaining a military is incredibly expensive. Why do you think the vast majority of Sukhoi's jets are in foreign hands while the country (Russia) that produces them hardly has any? Why do you think their Navy is barely afloat? Why do you think their ICBM's are rotting in their silos without maintenance?

[Crimson Dragoon]

Doublepost, but I don't give a fuck because this guy's stupidity deserves a scathing response worthy of Pipboy.

TANKS DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

INFANTRY DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

PLANES DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

What do you need to get over here? That's right, a navy! WHICH THE US CURRENTLY OUTGUNS THE REST OF THE WORLD IN. BY ALMOST DOUBLE.

Go stick yourself with AIDS, you're about as useful to humanity as Paris Hilton and less entertaining to watch.

I say thread should be closed on this. Or we could instead talk about a US versus The World anime series.

[Tash]

Lol nice try at neggin me Dragoon, next time slow down and make sure you check the right box, and try leaving a name.

[Banhammer]

You know, the black plague was brought from south america in what practically was driftwood
And AIDS came from african monkeys
How is a virus designed to cripple the entire world Not came back to bite us?
And I'm sure we are holding off as much as we can by sending tomahawks in the middle of the night

[Crimson Dragoon]

LOL wut? Didn't neg anyone plus I never neg rep since I think it's pure faggotry.

[EvilMoogle]

Even if we didn't have any reserves, which is unlikely considering the American government's loyalty to such promises (look at the recent development of the bunker buster nuke), we easily have the resources to produce more and quickly. All the labs that produced them and their research still exists. Combine that with the deepstrike capability that the other countries lack, and this will be over really quick.

Er, it takes time to produce biological weapons due to their very nature. Time is working against the US in this situation.

And the deep strike capability goes away in the first hour of the match when the sat system goes down.

Now, the rest of the world DOES have biological and chemical weapons...

[Tash]

Doublepost, but I don't give a fuck because this guy's stupidity deserves a scathing response worthy of Pipboy.

TANKS DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

INFANTRY DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

PLANES DO NOT MATTER WORTH A DAMN IF THEY CAN'T GET OVER HERE.

What do you need to get over here? That's right, a navy! WHICH THE US CURRENTLY OUTGUNS THE REST OF THE WORLD IN. BY ALMOST DOUBLE.

Go stick yourself with AIDS, you're about as useful to humanity as Paris Hilton and less entertaining to watch.
:lmao the last part made me lol

[Flamefang]

Even if we didn't have any reserves, which is unlikely considering the American government's loyalty to such promises (look at the recent development of the bunker buster nuke), we easily have the resources to produce more and quickly. All the labs that produced them and their research still exists. Combine that with the deepstrike capability that the other countries lack, and this will be over really quick.

Flameflang, are you dense or something? Darklyre has already posted why Russia is no longer a threat multiple times in the last couple pages. They don't have any money! Maintaining a military is incredibly expensive. Why do you think the vast majority of Sukhoi's jets are in foreign hands while the country (Russia) that produces them hardly has any? Why do you think their Navy is barely afloat?

Don't have any money? It might not be as powerful as during the soviet union, but saying that they don't have enough money is ridiculous. Do you know how much oil Russia has? It also supplies its citizens with food. They certainly have an army and a navy. And remember, this isn't Russia vs U.S, this is world vs U.S. This means that the world can give Russia funding in order to mass produce their weapons. The world can also borrow those plans and make their own. Isn't hard is it? And considering how many times I've stated how the U.S has no chance, you must be ridiculously dense with a skull three layers thicker than average. You keep putting up the U.S as this mega powerful nation. It isn't, it relies GREATLY on imports and exports. Without that it is weak, and could never survive in the long run. But really, the productivity of the whole WORLD vs one nation? 6 BILLION possible workers compared to 300 million? Can you even think?

[Arishem]

Er, it takes time to produce biological weapons due to their very nature. Time is working against the US in this situation.

And the deep strike capability goes away in the first hour of the match when the sat system goes down.

Now, the rest of the world DOES have biological and chemical weapons...
Don't tell me you honestly believe we don't have bioweapons, when just a few years back we unveiled a new delivery system for nukes, and there's not supposed to be any research of that nature going on at all. The US government clearly doesn't care about its agreements with other nations. They might have them, but they have no way to get them over here.

[Banhammer]

Our problem is pretty much this
We have good money
But terrible, terrible soldiers..

[Flamefang]

Don't tell me you honestly believe we don't have bioweapons, when just a few years back we unveiled a new delivery system for nukes, and there's not supposed to be any research of that nature going on at all. The US government clearly doesn't care about its agreements with other nations. They might have them, but they have no way to get them over here.

Oh yes, and all nations follow stupid agreements? What proof is there that other nations have not done the same? None. Thinking otherwise is naive at best

[Banhammer]

Oh, and about that post, what I ment was this
Our soldiers are from the bravest there is!
But because this war isn't about money at all
They are recieving the best care and training we can afford.
Oh right..

[Darklyre]

And you are pulling this "U.S navy double the world navy" where exactly? Your ass? Thought so. You must be blind since ive said it a hundred times, let me put it in words you can understand "world makes boats fast, boats good, soldiers go to boat" Sorry, i just can't seem to write at your standards, i've passed grade 2 too long to remember how to write that way...

Where? I dunno...every single site that states the number of aircraft carriers around? All of which emphatically state that the US currently has 21 aircraft carriers around, while the rest of the world has 13, none of which break the 70k ton mark? In order to hit the US mainland, the rest of the world would have to rely on airpower, of which only Russia has the kind of planes necessary to reach that kind of distance. Considering Russia is POOR AS HELL and has multiple research facilities and missile silos locked up and rusted, only 16 of Russia's 35 Tu-160 Blackjack bombers are still operational. For that matter, the rest of the world still lacks a stealth bomber comparable to the B-2, and I'd bet that the vast majority of the planet doesn't have radar coverage advanced enough to detect it.

Also, EvilMoogle, even without a GPS system, all US aircraft carriers have multiple AWACS planes aboard. Considering their range and radar strength, I doubt the lack of GPS would hurt that much. All navigators still learn to navigate via trigonometry and such.

[Banhammer]

again, by pulling the aircraft card, you are doubling the american oil cunsumption.
Do you think we can conquer the world in less than one mont?

[Sylar]

And nothing mentioned here will stop the Martians.

The Martians win easily now close this travesty of a thread.

[Crimson Dragoon]

And nothing mentioned here will stop the Martians.

The Martians win easily now close this travesty of a thread.

Damn straight. Those Martians are beasts. We don't have the plot devices to stop them. Plus we should end this. Until the anime comes out, of course. Then we can debate this to our hearts' content.("Nuh uh, The World only won through PIS." Or "The World has great hackers and cloaking devices. You fat arrogant Americans can't see past your own ego!!")

[Flamefang]

Where? I dunno...every single site that states the number of aircraft carriers around? All of which emphatically state that the US currently has 21 aircraft carriers around, while the rest of the world has 13, none of which break the 70k ton mark? In order to hit the US mainland, the rest of the world would have to rely on airpower, of which only Russia has the kind of planes necessary to reach that kind of distance. Considering Russia is POOR AS HELL and has multiple research facilities and missile silos locked up and rusted, only 16 of Russia's 35 Tu-160 Blackjack bombers are still operational. For that matter, the rest of the world still lacks a stealth bomber comparable to the B-2, and I'd bet that the vast majority of the planet doesn't have radar coverage advanced enough to detect it.

Also, EvilMoogle, even without a GPS system, all US aircraft carriers have multiple AWACS planes aboard. Considering their range and radar strength, I doubt the lack of GPS would hurt that much. All navigators still learn to navigate via trigonometry and such.

Poor as hell? Russia has a military vehicle that can take out 6 planes simultaneously, the vehicle also has a STRONG radar which takes out STEALTH BOMBERS. And you honestly thing that aircraft carriers is the only type of military boat? A well placed torpedo can sink the carrier. They are NOT invincible. And how are 23 carriers going to efficiently protect the borders? Cmon, you know how much land that is to cover? You have to be a moron to think 23 ships can effectively defend that much area. The world can also, make things (i put it in vocabulary that you can understand). It can make a bunch of submarines, which sink a the carrier in its path, then the rest of the fleet marches in and invades. Tell me, how are 23 ships going to patrol the whole continent of north America? You can even forget the subs, simply fight the carrier as it is. The carriers will be spread THIN if they cover that much area, taking one or 2 isn't a problem for THE WHOLE FRIKEN WORLD'S navy. Really, tell me how one country is going to secure its borders against the whole world? Your simply not thinking at all, are you?

[Flamefang]

And this is crazy anyway. All TROTW has to do is spam ghosts and use lockdown on those carriers and get on U.S soil. Or zerglin/marine rush. U.S doesn't stand a chance unless they have a bunch of zealots at their base BEFORE the rush. And cannons. U.S = cannon/carrier n00b

[Sengoku]

Poor as hell? Russia has a military vehicle that can take out 6 planes simultaneously, the vehicle also has a STRONG radar which takes out STEALTH BOMBERS. And you honestly thing that aircraft carriers is the only type of military boat? A well placed torpedo can sink the carrier. They are NOT invincible. And how are 23 carriers going to efficiently protect the borders? Cmon, you know how much land that is to cover? You have to be a moron to think 23 ships can effectively defend that much area. The world can also, make things (i put it in vocabulary that you can understand). It can make a bunch of submarines, which sink a the carrier in its path, then the rest of the fleet marches in and invades. Tell me, how are 23 ships going to patrol the whole continent of north America? You can even forget the subs, simply fight the carrier as it is. The carriers will be spread THIN if they cover that much area, taking one or 2 isn't a problem for THE WHOLE FRIKEN WORLD'S navy. Really, tell me how one country is going to secure its borders against the whole world? Your simply not thinking at all, are you?


submarines? LOL

arleighburke class destroyers. THANK YOU.
gg.

dont talk AS IF the subs are able to even get near the coastline of the US when you have many of them guarding nearby.

so. no.

[Flamefang]

submarines? LOL

arleighburke class destroyers. THANK YOU.
gg.

dont talk AS IF the subs are able to even get near the coastline of the US when you have many of them guarding nearby.

so. no.

Let me put it in simple terms so that you might understand, okay? U.S has ships. U.S has border. Border big. Ships guard border. World has ships. Many ships. TROTW's many ships attack wear there are not many U.S ships. Ships drop of soldiers on border. Rinse and repeat. Do you understand that? I don't think i can put it any simpler than that. It is difficult to write such a simple explanation. Tell me this though, how can the U.S protect its MASSIVE border? And TROTW can use c-802, one of the best anti-ship missiles, which can be used by airplanes, surface ships, submarines and land-based vehicles.

[Crimson Dragoon]

Japan has giant mechas and bishounens. The US therefore loses very badly.

[Sylar]

Mars has lazers.

And spaceships.

They curbstomp us.

[Crimson Dragoon]

True, Mars does curbstomp us. Unless we have hot-bloodedness and GAR, earth has no chance.

[EvilMoogle]

Don't tell me you honestly believe we don't have bioweapons, when just a few years back we unveiled a new delivery system for nukes, and there's not supposed to be any research of that nature going on at all. The US government clearly doesn't care about its agreements with other nations. They might have them, but they have no way to get them over here.

What I believe doesn't matter, unless you want this to be "the United States and whatever we think they have militarily vs. the rest of the world and whatever we think they have militarily.

Official US policy is we don't use biological or chemical weapons. We have very small amounts for testing, but none of it is currently in a weaponry useful state. We could produce it, but it would take time to do so. As I've stated often, time is very valuable to the US as each day wasted eats away at our fuel reserves.

I'll acknowledge that it's possible that we have a weaponized biochem program, however there is nothing this hypothetical program could have that dozens of other countries couldn't have as well. So if you want to go that route things go from "hopeless" for the US to "soul-suckingly, depressingly, super-emo hopeless." It's better for the US to pretend that biological/chemical weapons don't exist in significant numbers.

The only hope in this confrontation for the US is to assume that the rest of the world is tactically stupid. But that's not even hinted at in the opening post so I see no reason to cripple the rest of the world.

[Flamefang]

Zerg pwn all. Zergling rush is something to be feared... If the U.S could zergling rush properly, then the world is doomed. But maybe the world would cannon rush, and once you are cannon rushed, there is not much you CAN do...

[Crimson Dragoon]

Tyranids>>>>>Zerg. Can(n)on fakt.

Plus the Martians can also rape the Zerg. Zerg lack hot-bloodedness and GAR.

[Flamefang]

Tyranids>>>>>Zerg. Can(n)on fakt.

Plus the Martians can also rape the Zerg. Zerg lack hot-bloodedness and GAR.

No, the zerg have Sera Kerrigan, and if that isn't ho blooded i don't know what is. And they also have guardians. There are no many things that can match a guardian's ground destruction (40k is ridiculously over powered, not many things can compare to it)

[Sengoku]

its true ;<


the world is like the flood (halo), zergs, aliens, protoss, and terrans.

the world is like the imperium (ok maybe thats just overkill), a "limited" amount of tyranids

but tyranids still win. :laugh

[Crimson Dragoon]

But does Sara Kerrigan have a mecha? Zerg still lose. Plus Kerrigan is not hot-blooded enough.

[Sylar]

You know what?

Screw the Martians.

We get bitchslapped by The Covenant, because we don't have any Spartans to save our asses.

[Tash]

:lmaoLol n00bs, martians will lag teh server.

[Sengoku]

No, the zerg have Sera Kerrigan, and if that isn't ho blooded i don't know what is. And they also have guardians. There are no many things that can match a guardian's ground destruction (40k is ridiculously over powered, not many things can compare to it)

tyranids > zergs

like it or not.

[Crimson Dragoon]

Nuh uh, the Borg adapts to their plasma!!111!

[Azure Flame Kite]

America has that dude from the transformers movie that dude from the transformers movie has transformers thus USA wins

[Flamefang]

While on this topic, IS there anything more over powered than 40k? Because pretty much everything else looks feeble in comparison. And i used to think that DBZ was overpowering, but it has been beaten by 40k...

[Crimson Dragoon]

The Xeelee are ridiculously overpowered.

[Tash]

Lol actually Furons>covenant

[Flamefang]

But does Sara Kerrigan have a mecha? Zerg still lose. Plus Kerrigan is not hot-blooded enough.

I guess you have never seen Kerrigan-Rayner doujin/hentai... Man that stuff is scary... And obviously anything in the Star Craft world would be overpowered by the uber over powering of 40k. Not much you can do against things that play with reality itself as if its a toy...

[Crimson Dragoon]

A shame we never see the Furon Empire in its prime. I wanted to see them pwn the Martians and burn worlds.

[mister_napolean]

say...couldnt america take over the countries with oil first and use there suppplies

[Tash]

A shame we never see the Furon Empire in its prime. I wanted to see them pwn the Martians and burn worlds.

Furon w/ genitalia> all future offspring of the world.

[Flamefang]

say...couldnt america take over the countries with oil first and use there suppplies

The middle east is pretty much on the other side of the world so i don't see how...

[Crimson Dragoon]

Furons with genitals are truly a race to fear.

Oh yeah, Xeelee uberness. (http://forums.narutofan.com/showthread.php?t=215088&highlight=Xeelee)

[Darklyre]

Poor as hell? Russia has a military vehicle that can take out 6 planes simultaneously, the vehicle also has a STRONG radar which takes out STEALTH BOMBERS. And you honestly thing that aircraft carriers is the only type of military boat? A well placed torpedo can sink the carrier. They are NOT invincible. And how are 23 carriers going to efficiently protect the borders? Cmon, you know how much land that is to cover? You have to be a moron to think 23 ships can effectively defend that much area. The world can also, make things (i put it in vocabulary that you can understand). It can make a bunch of submarines, which sink a the carrier in its path, then the rest of the fleet marches in and invades. Tell me, how are 23 ships going to patrol the whole continent of north America? You can even forget the subs, simply fight the carrier as it is. The carriers will be spread THIN if they cover that much area, taking one or 2 isn't a problem for THE WHOLE FRIKEN WORLD'S navy. Really, tell me how one country is going to secure its borders against the whole world? Your simply not thinking at all, are you?

I don't need to think to beat you in a debate, because I can simply quote facts and be done with it. With you, thinking is overkill.

Only the US has the supercarriers, which carry DOUBLE the complement of a regular one. Considering the US has 10 such supercarriers, equivalent to 20 normal ones, we'd actually carry 31 carriers' worth of planes! Only the very largest carriers of other countries can get 40 planes on a carrier, and most of them are similar to the Invincible class, which only has 20 planes. The Nimitz supercarrier has 90+ planes. Guess what: out of 1250 aircraft fieldable by current aircraft carriers, US carriers have 1000+ of them.

Don't believe me? Here's a link on comparing aircraft carriers:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

Why are aircraft carriers so important to current modern warfare? Simple. NO OTHER SHIP HAS THE RANGE TO DO ANY KIND OF DAMAGE SHORT OF USING CRUISE MISSILES.

In fact, I'm going to list out the Naval fleets of the major naval powers:

US: 21 aircraft carriers, 27 cruisers, 50+ destroyers, 32 frigates, ~100 submarines
Russia: 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 19 destroyers, 16 frigates, ~75 submarines (most of Russia's navy is unable to deploy due to deteriorating equipment, as seen in recent losses of nuclear submarines)
China: 8 destroyers, ~50 frigates, ~50 submarines (the vast majority of which are obsolete diesel, instead of nuclear)
UK: 2 aircraft carriers (1 more currently mothballed), 11 destroyers, 21 frigates, 19 submarines
Germany: 5 destroyers, 12 frigates, 12 submarines
France: 1 aircraft carrier, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 9 frigates, 11 submarines
India: 1 aircraft carrier, 8 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 corvettes, 18 submarines

From that list, the US dwarfs every country combined in number of aircraft carriers and number of cruisers, and has a sizeable advantage in the number of destroyers. Why do frigates not matter? Because those things have a tonnage of around 4k tons, while cruisers pack 10k+ tons and destroyers
about 9k. In fact, at least half of China's frigates are below the 2k ton mark.

Same thing with the subs. US ballistic missile subs are packing 18-19k tons. Most of China's subs are in the 1.7k-3k ton range, with a single one packing 7k tons. Russia is the only country with submarine tonnage and classes comparable to the US, and even then half the fleet is mothballed or deteriorated to the point of uselessness. The 34k ton Typhoon was dismantled with US help. The Kursk was lost at sea, and it was a class of sub that is still being maintained. Most other classes have at least half their numbers mothballed due to lack of funding.

Why does tonnage matter? Because that directly affects the armaments it can carry. Without heavy tonnage you can't use heavy shore batteries for bombardment. Without heavy tonnage you lack the deckspace for large numbers of aircraft. Without heavy tonnage you lack the missile capacity. Without heavy tonnage you cannot transport large numbers of materiel. Without heavy tonnage you don't have the capacity for supplies needed for an extensive campaign.

The remark about money brings me to my next point. All the money in the world will not help Russia quick enough before the US strikes first. Think about it: all the equipment capable of matching US capacities is in Russia and/or Europe. Europe's forces lack the numbers to get past US defense screens, so they're forced to go with Russia. Russia's forces are in a serious state of disrepair. Yes, Europe could easily fund them back into a healthy state, but you forget one thing: that takes time. First they'd need to rebuild the factories and drydocks back to a working state. Secondly they'd need to recall their ships from the scrapyards for a modern refit, which can take years to do (at least 12 months, even with a wartime economy going). Even with all this, you're ignoring the fact that the US could simply destroy the drydocks and shipyards before any repairs ever get going. Do so and they'd lose by attrition; they'd never be able to repair their forces, or even go in for ammo and supplies. They'd be stuck using civilian ports, which are not equipped to deal with the tonnage and equipment of a military warship.

[EvilMoogle]

say...couldnt america take over the countries with oil first and use there suppplies

Not and hold them. Even if we assume they could capture significant oil resources without the mining facilities being destroyed, they'd be land locked between the forces of India, Europe, and China.

[Flamefang]

I don't need to think to beat you in a debate, because I can simply quote facts and be done with it. With you, thinking is overkill.

Only the US has the supercarriers, which carry DOUBLE the complement of a regular one. Considering the US has 10 such supercarriers, equivalent to 20 normal ones, we'd actually carry 31 carriers' worth of planes! Only the very largest carriers of other countries can get 40 planes on a carrier, and most of them are similar to the Invincible class, which only has 20 planes. The Nimitz supercarrier has 90+ planes. Guess what: out of 1250 aircraft fieldable by current aircraft carriers, US carriers have 1000+ of them.

Don't believe me? Here's a link on comparing aircraft carriers:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

Why are aircraft carriers so important to current modern warfare? Simple. NO OTHER SHIP HAS THE RANGE TO DO ANY KIND OF DAMAGE SHORT OF USING CRUISE MISSILES.

In fact, I'm going to list out the Naval fleets of the major naval powers:

US: 21 aircraft carriers, 27 cruisers, 50+ destroyers, 32 frigates, ~100 submarines
Russia: 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 19 destroyers, 16 frigates, ~75 submarines (most of Russia's navy is unable to deploy due to deteriorating equipment, as seen in recent losses of nuclear submarines)
China: 8 destroyers, ~50 frigates, ~50 submarines (the vast majority of which are obsolete diesel, instead of nuclear)
UK: 2 aircraft carriers (1 more currently mothballed), 11 destroyers, 21 frigates, 19 submarines
Germany: 5 destroyers, 12 frigates, 12 submarines
France: 1 aircraft carrier, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 9 frigates, 11 submarines
India: 1 aircraft carrier, 8 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 corvettes, 18 submarines

From that list, the US dwarfs every country combined in number of aircraft carriers and number of cruisers, and has a sizeable advantage in the number of destroyers. Why do frigates not matter? Because those things have a tonnage of around 4k tons, while cruisers pack 10k+ tons and destroyers
about 9k. In fact, at least half of China's frigates are below the 2k ton mark.

Same thing with the subs. US ballistic missile subs are packing 18-19k tons. Most of China's subs are in the 1.7k-3k ton range, with a single one packing 7k tons. Russia is the only country with submarine tonnage and classes comparable to the US, and even then half the fleet is mothballed or deteriorated to the point of uselessness. The 34k ton Typhoon was dismantled with US help. The Kursk was lost at sea, and it was a class of sub that is still being maintained. Most other classes have at least half their numbers mothballed due to lack of funding.

Why does tonnage matter? Because that directly affects the armaments it can carry. Without heavy tonnage you can't use heavy shore batteries for bombardment. Without heavy tonnage you lack the deckspace for large numbers of aircraft. Without heavy tonnage you lack the missile capacity. Without heavy tonnage you cannot transport large numbers of materiel. Without heavy tonnage you don't have the capacity for supplies needed for an extensive campaign.

The remark about money brings me to my next point. All the money in the world will not help Russia quick enough before the US strikes first. Think about it: all the equipment capable of matching US capacities is in Russia and/or Europe. Europe's forces lack the numbers to get past US defense screens, so they're forced to go with Russia. Russia's forces are in a serious state of disrepair. Yes, Europe could easily fund them back into a healthy state, but you forget one thing: that takes time. First they'd need to rebuild the factories and drydocks back to a working state. Secondly they'd need to recall their ships from the scrapyards for a modern refit, which can take years to do (at least 12 months, even with a wartime economy going). Even with all this, you're ignoring the fact that the US could simply destroy the drydocks and shipyards before any repairs ever get going. Do so and they'd lose by attrition; they'd never be able to repair their forces, or even go in for ammo and supplies. They'd be stuck using civilian ports, which are not equipped to deal with the tonnage and equipment of a military warship.

And how will they destroy those dry docks? Planes? The world has more planes and plenty of anti air. And don't underestimate submarines, since submarines can launch torpedoes and blow the carriers right out of the watter. And again, you fail at pointing out exactly how in thee world can the U.S stretch that amount of ships over such a large terrain? And its easy to build new ships, with the worlds financing and manpower. The U.S has no way of invading, all the can do is keep a constant defense. Which is WEAK since they HAVE to STRETCH OUT THEIR FLEET OVER THE BORDER. Can you not read? All those boats will not be together! Can you not simply understand that if the U.S puts all their ships together, the world can simply, avoid it? They build more ships (and the world may not have a gigantic fleet because it may or may not have been preparing for a war, unlike the war crazy U.S) They can make up the numbers in their fleet. They can fix those ships. Why? Because U.S can do NOTHING. What can they do? Send a pack of stealth bombers to bomb the docks only to be taken out of the sky before they can push the button? Advance on the world with its fleet only to be counter attacked? Do you not understand these simple things? TROTW has ALL the time. The U.S time is limited to their resources. The U.S can not launch a successful invasion. It will be defeated and counter attacked. I ask you once again to explain to me how the U.S can defend its borders? You say you don't want to, but its not, you can not. Your argument is empty until you show how they can. Its not that you don't want to think, you don't posses the brain capacity for thoughts. Really, you avoid the question that you can not answer. And how will the U.S attack? Will they leave their home unguarded and go all out? Or will they send small troops that will be slaughtered? Remember, the world has all the time, in the world. And with time they will build up their fleet and attack. With funding to Russia they can build more good carriers. TROTW has 6 billion people, thats a lot of potential workers.

[Banhammer]

Mrs Weasley. Nuff Said.

[Sengoku]

And how will they destroy those dry docks? Planes? The world has more planes and plenty of anti air. And don't underestimate submarines, since submarines can launch torpedoes and blow the carriers right out of the watter. And again, you fail at pointing out exactly how in thee world can the U.S stretch that amount of ships over such a large terrain? And its easy to build new ships, with the worlds financing and manpower. The U.S has no way of invading, all the can do is keep a constant defense. Which is WEAK since they HAVE to STRETCH OUT THEIR FLEET OVER THE BORDER. Can you not read? All those boats will not be together! Can you not simply understand that if the U.S puts all their ships together, the world can simply, avoid it? They build more ships (and the world may not have a gigantic fleet because it may or may not have been preparing for a war, unlike the war crazy U.S) They can make up the numbers in their fleet. They can fix those ships. Why? Because U.S can do NOTHING. What can they do? Send a pack of stealth bombers to bomb the docks only to be taken out of the sky before they can push the button? Advance on the world with its fleet only to be counter attacked? Do you not understand these simple things? TROTW has ALL the time. The U.S time is limited to their resources. The U.S can not launch a successful invasion. It will be defeated and counter attacked. I ask you once again to explain to me how the U.S can defend its borders? You say you don't want to, but its not, you can not. Your argument is empty until you show how they can. Its not that you don't want to think, you don't posses the brain capacity for thoughts. Really, you avoid the question that you can not answer. And how will the U.S attack? Will they leave their home unguarded and go all out? Or will they send small troops that will be slaughtered? Remember, the world has all the time, in the world. And with time they will build up their fleet and attack. With funding to Russia they can build more good carriers. TROTW has 6 billion people, thats a lot of potential workers.

it is you who haven't given us any factual proof.

you speak as if it is SOOOO easy to walk through past U.S. military defense when in fact you don't even have a single clue as to what you are even talking about.

I trust darklyre over your posts any day. Someone who admires ak47s to great lengths without even thinking out of the box aka missiles >>> ak47s is just beyond me.


OH NO there are enemies in the trenches with ak47s AHHH!!!!
US military officers: here are the coordinates *insert numbers here*

world people: hey... whats that loud thunder that is coming ever so closely?.....


BOOM.

[blankshot]

The middle east is pretty much on the other side of the world so i don't see how...

So is a large part of the US army.

Without prep time, I can't see the US winning. The sheer scale and numbers facing them would make destroying EVERY military base and force in EVERY country of the world WHILE defending their own shores a very difficult task. Add to this the basic theme of a hard, demoralizing strike being the main threat of the US (almost like a blitzkrieg of air and sea power), at the current point in time it would prove impossible or very difficult.

Plus if you think about it, reducing the military forces of every country or entity on earth to ashes would be nigh on impossible, because of the inevitable fallback of countries on guerilla tacitics. We could probably take out the large bases and gatherings, but countless soldiers would just go to ground or become nearly impossible to find, and you can't bomb the entire surface of the Earth with non-nuclear weapons. (technically you could, but even the combined resources of the whole world would take probably decades to do it.)

If the US was given prep time, this could potentially make the difference. All the health care / educational / whatever money we're spending? Not needed. Total war economics would sure as hell kickstart the military back to Vietnam levels and far beyond. Oil and weapon stockpiles are obviously included in the plan. IF the entire world somehow didn't step up their military spending after that happens, then possilby America has a chance of decapitating the military of several prominant countries in one fell swoop.

It really depends on what the victory conditions for America boil down to. If we have to just detsory the center of command and the large majority of organized resistance in each country, and possibly the governments as well, we might have a shot (with at least some prep time.) But if it is to entirely grind the soldiers of the world into the dust, it will prove nearly impossible.

Take vietnam as an example. Obviously this would be much more brutal, with the majority of our attacks being air strikes with weapons far superior to Vietnam-era technology, but still the US tried for years with a large army and numerous air strikes and couldn't subdue the one country. Can even a massive, world-wide wave of bombings and attacks destroy every military on earth before organized resistance and the pooled resources of every country on earth swallow even the mighty USA?

Also, do biological weapons factor in? Those could be even more deadly than nuclear devices to large populations (Think Beijing. Massive catastrophe). Are they banned? The idea of USA v. The world is intriguing, but a whole lot of factors need to be explicitly stated before you could really consider the idea.

[Metric]

So is a large part of the US army.

Without prep time, I can't see the US winning. The sheer scale and numbers facing them would make destroying EVERY military base and force in EVERY country of the world WHILE defending their own shores a very difficult task. Add to this the basic theme of a hard, demoralizing strike being the main threat of the US (almost like a blitzkrieg of air and sea power), at the current point in time it would prove impossible or very difficult.

Plus if you think about it, reducing the military forces of every country or entity on earth to ashes would be nigh on impossible, because of the inevitable fallback of countries on guerilla tacitics. We could probably take out the large bases and gatherings, but countless soldiers would just go to ground or become nearly impossible to find, and you can't bomb the entire surface of the Earth with non-nuclear weapons. (technically you could, but even the combined resources of the whole world would take probably decades to do it.)

If the US was given prep time, this could potentially make the difference. All the health care / educational / whatever money we're spending? Not needed. Total war economics would sure as hell kickstart the military back to Vietnam levels and far beyond. Oil and weapon stockpiles are obviously included in the plan. IF the entire world somehow didn't step up their military spending after that happens, then possilby America has a chance of decapitating the military of several prominant countries in one fell swoop.

It really depends on what the victory conditions for America boil down to. If we have to just detsory the center of command and the large majority of organized resistance in each country, and possibly the governments as well, we might have a shot (with at least some prep time.) But if it is to entirely grind the soldiers of the world into the dust, it will prove nearly impossible.

Take vietnam as an example. Obviously this would be much more brutal, with the majority of our attacks being air strikes with weapons far superior to Vietnam-era technology, but still the US tried for years with a large army and numerous air strikes and couldn't subdue the one country. Can even a massive, world-wide wave of bombings and attacks destroy every military on earth before organized resistance and the pooled resources of every country on earth swallow even the mighty USA?

Also, do biological weapons factor in? Those could be even more deadly than nuclear devices to large populations (Think Beijing. Massive catastrophe). Are they banned? The idea of USA v. The world is intriguing, but a whole lot of factors need to be explicitly stated before you could really consider the idea.

The most sensible post so far. The US military would be too thinly stretched out to attack all the world's bases AND defend its coastline all at the same time. And the USA would need to win within a pretty short period of time, before they get screwed by a war of attrition.

And i would like to point out that the USA could be invaded by land through Canada or South America and Mexico.

[Banhammer]

I say canada is our weakest point, since it has the largest area and can cut us off from alaska, reducing our oil resources 75%
Yes, we would have oilcarrers, but inputing the speed of that, plus their own consumption, I say, we just went from on month to conquer the world, to about 15-20 days.
Not to mention the far easier acces to the us from europe

[Flamefang]

it is you who haven't given us any factual proof.

you speak as if it is SOOOO easy to walk through past U.S. military defense when in fact you don't even have a single clue as to what you are even talking about.

I trust darklyre over your posts any day. Someone who admires ak47s to great lengths without even thinking out of the box aka missiles >>> ak47s is just beyond me.


OH NO there are enemies in the trenches with ak47s AHHH!!!!
US military officers: here are the coordinates *insert numbers here*

world people: hey... whats that loud thunder that is coming ever so closely?.....


BOOM.

And, again, the U.S is the ONLY country with missles? Are you a moron? And Proof of what? That 10 boats can beat one boat? The U.S launches missiles, the world launches missiles, the world has more missiles, U.S bombarded, U.S looses. Simple enough?
The worlds missiles can't reach the U.S? Are you serious? Oh ya, the U.S is the only country with decent missile launching, suuuureeee mister head of military technology of every country in the world.
And do you forget missile defense systems? Believing that the U.S has the only good missile defense system is moronic. Other countries have them too, and guess what, they work.

[blankshot]

The most sensible post so far. The US military would be too thinly stretched out to attack all the world's bases AND defend its coastline all at the same time. And the USA would need to win within a pretty short period of time, before they get screwed by a war of attrition.

And i would like to point out that the USA could be invaded by land through Canada or South America and Mexico.

That's the word, forgot the phrase War of Attrition lol.

Seriously though, most people can't get out of their minds that this is NOT a US v. China or Russia or Europe fight. The entire combined resources of the civilized world are not going to be destroyed and probably not even crippled in a single, massive surprise attack. Because of this simple fact, the US would eventually lose the war. As Metric said, we can really only devote our full strength to either attacking or defending. The only way for an attack to have even a remote chance of success is to utilize all our resources. But, in doing so, we are open for a counter attack, which would likely destroy us. On the other hand, if we put everything into defense, eventually attrition destroys us. Either way the US couldn't win.

Like I said earlier, even if we destroyed the majority of the world's established military, the guerilla fighters and underground gatherings would prevent us from ever achieving victory.

[Darklyre]

And, again, the U.S is the ONLY country with missles? Are you a moron? And Proof of what? That 10 boats can beat one boat? The U.S launches missiles, the world launches missiles, the world has more missiles, U.S bombarded, U.S looses. Simple enough?
The worlds missiles can't reach the U.S? Are you serious? Oh ya, the U.S is the only country with decent missile launching, suuuureeee mister head of military technology of every country in the world.
And do you forget missile defense systems? Believing that the U.S has the only good missile defense system is moronic. Other countries have them too, and guess what, they work.

You're a fucking idiot. NO ONE has a missile defense shield that can do any better than maybe 10% accuracy. What DOES matter is the range on those missiles. China and North Korea both lack the range to hit anything beyond the coast of California. Europe's missile stockpile is actually mostly US material, on US bases (installed during the Cold War). The UK could hit us, but they lack the numbers to actually do much. The only credible missile threat are the Russians, who have literally half or more of their silos in a non-firable state. Most of their operable silos are near Chechnya and Eastern Europe (also installed during the Cold War), not near the Siberian side of the country, which would have the best chance of actually reaching the US.

As of yet, your arguments have consisted of:

1. superduper German cloaking technology!
2. superh4x child prodigy hackers!
3. AK-47s!
4. British tanks with superarmor!
5. missiles with less range than it takes to actually reach the US!

You don't need research. You need .45 caliber aspirin to relieve the stupidity plaguing your brain.

[Sylar]

What can your puny missle defense system do when The Covenant is glassing the planet?

You gonna die.

[Goodfellow]

World solos. Wait...:huh?

(seriously though, there is about 300 million people in USA. And, to quote the words of Stalin I think. If everyone of my people kill one of your people before we die, we are going to win. Or something like that.)

[Dog Rapist]

Attrition takes this.

[Flamefang]

You're a fucking idiot. NO ONE has a missile defense shield that can do any better than maybe 10% accuracy. What DOES matter is the range on those missiles. China and North Korea both lack the range to hit anything beyond the coast of California. Europe's missile stockpile is actually mostly US material, on US bases (installed during the Cold War). The UK could hit us, but they lack the numbers to actually do much. The only credible missile threat are the Russians, who have literally half or more of their silos in a non-firable state. Most of their operable silos are near Chechnya and Eastern Europe (also installed during the Cold War), not near the Siberian side of the country, which would have the best chance of actually reaching the US.

As of yet, your arguments have consisted of:

1. superduper German cloaking technology!
2. superh4x child prodigy hackers!
3. AK-47s!
4. British tanks with superarmor!
5. missiles with less range than it takes to actually reach the US!

You don't need research. You need .45 caliber aspirin to relieve the stupidity plaguing your brain.

Again, the idioticy continues. I ask you of a simple thing to explain. How is the U.S going to protect its borders? And you fail at explaining it time and time again. Who says Europe has not build their own missile launching systems? Would they announce info like that to the world? "Hey look! We got rockets that can reduce NYC to a smoking crater!" Would they? And you are wrong about the missile defense. It is pretty decent, not perfect but decent. It could probably destroy 60% of the incoming missiles, the world can build more missile defense systems and missile launching systems, don't forget that. Since the world has manpower that dwarfs the U.S' it is easily accomplishable. Destroying the launching systems in Europe that are U.S made isn't hard. There is not that many. No sane country would go "Hey, build a launching system that would burn my cities and kill my people". The world can simply disarm them. More importantly, state how the U.S would protect its massive borders. You are clearly a moron since you can not state how the U.S will stop one of the easiest ways to destroy them
And i didn't make the statements 1,2,4,5. The missiles on U.S soil will not reach the world, as the range is pretty much the same as the European missile launching system, according to statement 5. And the ones outside of the world have limited ammo and can easily be destroyed. To my disappointment you keep being a moron...

[Flamefang]

And Chuck Norris can solo the whole universe

[Sylar]

Squirrel Girl > Chuck Norris.

[Nice Gai]

Head Guy in Japan: Assemble me 5 Gundams now and find 5 gay guys to pilot them.

5 gay guys + Gundams = pwnage to any country.

[Flamefang]

Squirrel Girl > Chuck Norris.

No at the mere sight of Chuck Norris, she will give in to her animal side and start doing adult things together...

[Sylar]

The Anti-Life is above your petty human desires.

[Flamefang]

The Anti-Life is above your petty human desires.

No its not >>

[Aokiji]

:notrust US dies....

[Kaiwai]

The whole world against the US? Come on. The US can't win.

[Tash]

Bruce Lee>Squirrel Girl > Chuck Norris.

Fixed it for you.

[Sengoku]

Again, the idioticy continues. I ask you of a simple thing to explain. How is the U.S going to protect its borders? And you fail at explaining it time and time again. Who says Europe has not build their own missile launching systems? Would they announce info like that to the world? "Hey look! We got rockets that can reduce NYC to a smoking crater!" Would they? And you are wrong about the missile defense. It is pretty decent, not perfect but decent. It could probably destroy 60% of the incoming missiles, the world can build more missile defense systems and missile launching systems, don't forget that. Since the world has manpower that dwarfs the U.S' it is easily accomplishable. Destroying the launching systems in Europe that are U.S made isn't hard. There is not that many. No sane country would go "Hey, build a launching system that would burn my cities and kill my people". The world can simply disarm them. More importantly, state how the U.S would protect its massive borders. You are clearly a moron since you can not state how the U.S will stop one of the easiest ways to destroy them
And i didn't make the statements 1,2,4,5. The missiles on U.S soil will not reach the world, as the range is pretty much the same as the European missile launching system, according to statement 5. And the ones outside of the world have limited ammo and can easily be destroyed. To my disappointment you keep being a moron...

HEY AK47s >>>>>>>> US !!! :nod

[Sylar]

Squirrel Girl > ANDROSS! > Bruce Lee > Chuck Norris > Paris Hilton > Sasuke.

[Tash]

Bruce Lee>Squirrel Girl > ANDROSS! > Chuck Norris > Paris Hilton >France> Sasuke.

Bruce lee beats andross because, Bruce lee>Player>Starfox>Andross

[Sylar]

Bruce lee beats andross because, Bruce lee>Player>Starfox>Andross

Bruce Lee, Rock Lee, Hitmonlee, Lee from Rush Hour, and Chunky Lee Chong all combined can't match ANDROSS!!!!! and by extension Squirrel Girl.

[Sengoku]

nah ak47 > *

[Tash]

Bruce Lee, Rock Lee, Hitmonlee, Lee from Rush Hour, and Chunky Lee Chong all combined can't match ANDROSS!!!!! and by extension Squirrel Girl.

Hitmonnorris> andross

[Sylar]

Hitmonnorris is filler and your noncan(n)on material is not welcome in this clearly well thought out thread that was not meant in any shape or form of putting down the USA.

[Tash]

France would own but sadly, France is filler.:cry

[Banhammer]

HUMILIATION=andros!!>Mrs Weasley(bloodlust off)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>france wich is >^999999999sasuke

[Flamefang]

France would own but sadly, France is filler.:cry

Pfft, France only uses PNJ to win

[Kagutsuchi]

But France and FIRE ZE MISSLES!

[Amatsu]

Hitmonnorris is filler and your noncan(n)on material is not welcome in this clearly well thought out thread that was not meant in any shape or form of putting down the USA.

this thread doesn't insult the US. It's a satire on how superior the US is to all other countries and continents.

[Banhammer]

USA wins against andros by droping a titan sized anvil made of money and both british and american soldier's lives

[Way-Man]

Stone Cold Steve Austin solos. What? You were expecting a serious answer? Nah.

[Darklyre]

France would own but sadly, France is filler.:cry

The only country that France could beat in a war is France.

Hence why the French won the French Revolution.

[Sylar]

The only country that France could beat in a war is France.

Hence why the French won the French Revolution.

Actually France lost the French Revolution.... :ninja

Which just goes to show they can't beat themselves. :laugh

[Jeltz]

The only country that France could beat in a war is France.

Hence why the French won the French Revolution.

I am so tired of this joke made up in 2003, it is not fun any more. Before 2003 I don't think the idea that France surrenders existed. France has been one of the more warlike countries in Europe, and is one of the world biggest arms producers and has one of Europe's best equipped and most modern armies. France would be a threat to the USA, especially combined with the rest of the world.

Third largest arms exporter. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports)
Fourth largest airforce. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_air_for_per-military-air-force-personnel)
Fith largest navy. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_nav_per-military-navy-personnel)

EDIT I suggest you all read the article at Wikipedia about French military history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France).

The military history of France encompasses an immense panorama of conflicts and struggles extending for more than 2,000 years across areas including modern France, greater Europe, and European territorial possessions overseas. Because of such lengthy periods of warfare, the peoples of France have often been at the forefront of military development, and as a result, military trends emerging in France have had a decisive impact on European and world history.

[Sylar]

I am so tired of this joke made up in 2003, it is not fun any more. Before 2003 I don't think the idea that France surrenders existed. France has been one of the more warlike countries in Europe, and is one of the world biggest arms producers and has one of Europe's best equipped and most modern armies. France would be a threat to the USA, especially combined with the rest of the world.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

[Jeltz]

I admit that France would lose the battle in numbers, but in this war France hardly is alone. France could only field 1/5 of the army of the USA:

[Flamefang]

The axis lost because of CIS. Admit it. If they weren't so cocky, we might be living in a Germany controlled world...

[Goodfellow]

Actually, I think the axis (well, the Germans) lost because of russian manpower and the economical might of the brittish commonwealth and USA. But of course, that might just be what CIS means. I can't figure out what it stands for <.<

[Silver]

I am so tired of this joke made up in 2003, it is not fun any more. Before 2003 I don't think the idea that France surrenders existed. France has been one of the more warlike countries in Europe, and is one of the world biggest arms producers and has one of Europe's best equipped and most modern armies. France would be a threat to the USA, especially combined with the rest of the world.

Third largest arms exporter. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports)
Fourth largest airforce. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_air_for_per-military-air-force-personnel)
Fith largest navy. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_nav_per-military-navy-personnel)

EDIT I suggest you all read the article at Wikipedia about French military history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France).

You have humored Jesus.

Peace be with you my child.

[Sasori]

^ K1nj3 :lmao

[Fuujin]

USA would seriously go down here, with no trade from other countries (which make up for a large amount of it's economic supplies) it would only be a matter of time before supplies start to run out.

[Tash]

I am so tired of this joke made up in 2003, it is not fun any more. Before 2003 I don't think the idea that France surrenders existed. France has been one of the more warlike countries in Europe, and is one of the world biggest arms producers and has one of Europe's best equipped and most modern armies. France would be a threat to the USA, especially combined with the rest of the world.

Third largest arms exporter. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports)
Fourth largest airforce. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_air_for_per-military-air-force-personnel)
Fith largest navy. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_nav_per-military-navy-personnel)

EDIT I suggest you all read the article at Wikipedia about French military history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France).

Calm down man. The "france is filler thing" is a running gag started by Zaru.:laugh

[Darklyre]

The axis lost because of CIS. Admit it. If they weren't so cocky, we might be living in a Germany controlled world...

For all the previous flaming and heated debates, I gotta agree with this. Hitler at the end of WW2 (most dictators, really) was the perfect example of CIS.

[Havoc]

America has Jesus on our side.

[Amatsu]

George W. Bush activates his sharingan and uses Fuusenrasengan. :laugh

[Banhammer]

America has Jesus on our side.

wrong, jesus is jewish, he sticks with his people.

The italian -.-

[Havoc]

wrong, jesus is jewish, he sticks with his people.

The italian -.-

You mean the jews that condemned him?

Besides, Jesus hates France.

Anybody who sides with France is an enemy of Jesus :pek

[Banhammer]

You mean the jews that condemned him?

Besides, Jesus hates France.

Anybody who sides with France is an enemy of Jesus :pek

Hey, hey, hey, hey! Take it easy man! No need to say the F* word in the same sentence as Jesus!

And I mean, Jesus sides with the italian because of his taste for wine

[Flamefang]

wrong, jesus is jewish, he sticks with his people.

The italian -.-

No, since the large population of the world is asian, this means that there are most of that race on the world, meaning that asians are his people, meaning that Jesus is black. I mean, cmon he turns water in to wine and calls everyone "brother" and "sister"

[Jeltz]

Calm down man. The "france is filler thing" is a running gag started by Zaru.:laugh

I know it is a running gag in many forums. If it had been just this forum I wouldn't have cared. What bothers me is that I am pretty sure that some percentage of the population of the USA (since the gag seems to be more common there) believes there is some truth behind the gag.

We should all remember our history and that France has historically been one of the biggest warmongers.

EDIT: And universal running gags are boring. Just look at all your base and Russian reversal.

[Sylar]

I know it is a running gag in many forums. If it had been just this forum I wouldn't have cared. What bothers me is that I am pretty sure that some percentage of the population of the USA (since the gag seems to be more common there) believes there is some truth behind the gag.

We should all remember our history and that France has historically been one of the biggest warmongers.

EDIT: And universal running gags are boring. Just look at all your base and Russian reversal.

The joke comes from how easily Germany beat them in WW2.

[Banhammer]

The joke comes from how easily Germany beat them in WW2.

they were the country right next to a an enemy superpower... Anyone smaller than Russia would have lost like that

No, that joke cames from the fact only half surrended, and one half fough the surrending half, and noone fought the germans

[Birkin]

:lmao

This thread is 2 years old

[Banhammer]

:lmao

This thread is 2 years old

yeah, well, your.. 0 years old :p nhanhanhanhanha

And flamefland, there are italian brothers

[Flamefang]

yeah, well, your.. 0 years old :p nhanhanhanhanha

And flamefland, there are italian brothers

I never said that there wasn't. This opens up the possibility of Jesus being a Black Italian Buddhist...

[Tash]

This thread is 2 years old!!! Who the fuck dug it up.:angry

[Banhammer]

I never said that there wasn't. This opens up the possibility of Jesus being a Black Italian Buddhist...

who needs to marry a girl half greek, half black, half asian and half hindu
I see a date movie 2 coming out of this

[Dr. Boskov Krevorkian]

I love when people Thread Necro, seriously.

[Sylar]

Two weeks wouldn't be considered a Necro, seriously.

[Havoc]

U.S has been developing peak human soldiers like Captain America.

[Dr. Boskov Krevorkian]

Two weeks wouldn't be considered a Necro, seriously.

But two years would, seriously.

[Sylar]

But two years would, seriously.

But this thread was last posted in two weeks ago, seriously.

[Havoc]

Shut up guys, seriously.

[Dr. Boskov Krevorkian]

I just have a question, was it Havoc or you who gave me the neg? :awesome

I lol'd.

Havoc, Yeah, but can he stand up to Captain 3rd Reich?

[Havoc]

I always sign my negs

[auron55]

this thread should just go die already

[strongarm85]

The world. This presumption is not made with any inkling as to the military power of any nation in question, but entirely on the idea that the US has no control over oil and many other essential supplies that would be needed to wage such a large non-nuclear war. Sure we have a gigantic arsenal, but we don't have enough gas to launch it all :laugh

Actually, this is how the US would deal with this situation if that where to happen. First all oil baised products going to the citizens would be suverly limited and redirected for military use. This would of course destroy the local economy, but not as much as you would think because anyone under the age of 40 of both genders would suddenly become eligible to be drafted into the military and would sent out war within a month. Nevada and Arizona are not highly populated and they would likely likely loose some ground over. Texas would not fall very smoothly, even if the was success there, with literally thosands of hunters and red necks and pride running rampant there would likely be many small militia formed to repel invaders, but with Fort Hood right there we would likely maintain most of Texas early on.

The Canadians don't have much of a military to speak of. If we marched devision into their capital and demanded their unconditional surrender we would probably get it since the French half is already wanting to succeed and join America anyways.

Within a matter of days though, the citizens of California would be overun by Mexico and California being what it is would topple quickly. That would provide China and Russia with a possible point of easy entry into the US and it would be left to the Navy alone to hold off an invasion.

The Florida Keys would fall prey to Cuba, but the Air force presence in Florida would prevent them from doing a lot of major damage to the state.

Things really wouldn't look good to be honest. We'd put up a hell of a fight, but in a few months I think the war would be over and ultimately we would loose. Its hard to see how 280,000,000 americans over 6,000,000,000+ people from all over the world.