Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Man
This makes no sense. The rest of the world laughs at the US because they think we use guns too often, not often enough.
I'm a liberal and I hate guns. But that **** goes out the window if US is attacked by rest of world. The US would reinstate the draft and the size of the military would grow.
The war wouldn't be fought in the streets and towns like it was in the Rev. War or Civil War. The US would be on the offensive while having defensive capabilities to stop major attacks.
Assuming there are no Geneva Convention rules, the US has the firepower to attack major cities. A coordinated strike that happens quick enough would kill tens of millions of civilians. The US could also attack the infrastructure of countries and cities cutting off heat and power in winter.
Assuming we don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention and can attack at will, I don't think the US would lose.
You seem to forget that you are under attack (aka we're attacking you, not the other way around). The moment you know its war is the moment you find out 1000s missiles are coming for you largest cities and industrial zones. So, yeah, good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daca
This, lol. Im afraid we wont have the US script this war for us so winning doesnt seem like an option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daca
The US forgets that even though they have A LOT of weapons, ROW has MORE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A S U
Only shot row has is a well planned surprise attack across multiple fronts, which is nearly impossible anyways. Lol@ guerilla warfare. How is the row going to move millions of troops? Embargo won't work either. The entire world shuts us off one day? USA will take that as a sign of war and attack at the first sign of aggression. USA can't be beat in a long distance war. Too strong on the water and in the air. maybe they could grind us out for 20 years but the world would be uninhabitable anyway so we all lose.
The guerilla warfare was probably with regard to the US invading other (neighboring) countries which it is notoriously sucky at doing. Again, we don't have to beach your crappy beaches. We will just bomb the **** out of you and you will bomb the **** out of us. UL for you its a lot easier to bomb 1 country then it is to bomb 'the rest of the world'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiper
agreed.
and the fact that we're even arguing about a country with 300 million people fighting off 8 billion invaders proves that saying, no?
I just don't want this thread to get locked.
for the record, I realize we're not just gonna mop the floor here. but I just wanna keep taking the position that due to geography and a massive advantage in military hardware and software and the historical fact that when faced with total war, our economy can be very quickly turned into the world's most efficient war-producing machine.
yes, the rest of the security council countries will def do the same, I just think having two oceans and enough natural resources to last a long, long time (and more importantly, the ability to protect them) gives us something like the seattle seahawks gimmick stadium home field advantage.
plus, lots and lots of hillbillies with guns that are not only okay with, but HAPPY to survive on a diet of squirrels and radishes.
Bolded so much, I actually like this argument but it could really only exist because of the 'patriotism' of the US. No other country could think it even has a fighting chance against the rest of the world and that it wouldn't be simply abolished in the progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaipwn
not sure why SEALs are an advantage? other nations have equivalent special forces that are arguably better, SAS being the most notable
Dont you know ? Not only are all US tactics more advanced/better then the ROW's are but all their technology is by default better and so is their training. The only thing they have to do for this to be true is to believe it. Now thats easy, right ? Ignorance is bliss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
I think the general anti-war European population would come out in force against their governments to stop their war of aggression immediately. You can't just assume that every single person in every other country would be whole-heartedly for aggression vs. the US, but that some Americans would not be for using any defense possible.
Yeah, its not like we have been battling side to side in some crappy sandbox at the other side of the world while we have nothing to do there. The anti-war population in EU certainly showed governments not to **** with them! I would go as far that there is more anti-war bias in the US then there is in the EU.