United States attacked by the entire world: who wins and why? - Page 29 - Other Topics Forum - Discuss Pop Culture, Arts and Entertainment

Two Plus Two Forums 2+2 Communities Other Other Topics

United States attacked by the entire world: who wins and why?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 29 of 35

First

9 19 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Last

Page 29 of 35

First

9 19 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Last

02-16-2014 , 03:00 AM

#701

sup hezbollah

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,559

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiper

24 hours after we tell china to go **** itself over the trillion in bonds they got

lol

Quote

02-16-2014 , 04:38 AM

#702

pig4bill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 35,184

Quote:

Originally Posted by bware

Thought this was an interesting idea but by the time I read through this thread I was pretty sick of it (both the USA#1 and the LOLUSA sides are incredibly annoying). General thoughts in no particular order:

1) People are underestimating the 24-hour head start the US gets with military positioning (e.g. ballistic subs) - could instantly target large cities, manufacturing hubs, military bases, etc
2) People are way overestimating the power of aircraft carriers, which can be defeated relatively cheaply and easily even when surrounded by a battle group
3) Related to (2), people are overestimating America's Air Force, since much of their strength is reliant on foreign bases and aircraft carriers. Yes, there would be an advantage but not as big of an impact as people expect
4) The US has exported much more of its "mainstream" military technology than people think, and this would presumably be shared among ROW nations. F-35 JSF development is a multi-national effort; Japan has Aegis BMD capability which would reduce effectiveness of ballistic missiles; the Ohio-replacement submarine program (which is won't be fielded until ~20 years from now anyways) has been sharing technology with the British Royal Navy; even THAAD involves some foreign countries and companies AFAIK. All of this would reduce America's technological advantage in conventional warfare
5) Anyone that thinks national pride or willpower makes a big difference is an idiot
6) Whoever referenced American tanks as an advantage is also an idiot, since it is incredibly unlikely this war would take place on land in a traditional battlefield
7) People are underestimating the effectiveness of naval mines at disrupting the American Navy's advantage. The American minesweeper fleet is aging quickly and the replacement technology isn't quite there yet. Also, it's a hell of a lot easier to lay a mine than to neutralize one

I really think the US's 24-hour head start puts them at a huge initial advantage, but even with that I don't think the industrial base exists to support a prolonged engagement against multiple countries that are sharing technology. Even if the ROW nations are cooperating less-than-efficiently, I think the sheer numbers make the difference in the long run. The US really doesn't have a chance here.

You have it backwards. It's not USA Attacks ROW. Most of that crap is irrelevant.

Quote

02-16-2014 , 05:14 AM

#703

Uncle Wimp

adept

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,174

How many countries surrender to us immediately, like France?

Quote

02-16-2014 , 12:50 PM

#704

TooRareToDie

banned

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 4,304

^^Don't think so. They have the french foreign legion with mainly (...) foreigners in it

Quote

02-16-2014 , 05:56 PM

#705

abnormal

banned

Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 909

Quote:

Originally Posted by domer2

The entire non-US world (~6.9 billion people) attack a nation of 300 million.

ground rules?

Quote

02-17-2014 , 08:51 AM

#706

ANONN123

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig4bill

You have it backwards. It's not USA Attacks ROW. Most of that crap is irrelevant.

"The US wins when the rest of the world surrenders." Zero chance the US just bunkers down and defends its borders; there will have to be counter attacks.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 01:57 PM

#707

wiper

still catching up

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 42,642

"any country that makes an effort to attack or help attack the US will see it's 2 most-populated cities leveled immediately".

still probably can't hold out forever, but that should shake loose the weak hands at least..

Quote

02-17-2014 , 03:34 PM

#708

sup hezbollah

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,559

Am I crazy for wanting to see World War 3?

Quote

02-17-2014 , 03:45 PM

#709

thekid345

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,616

Quote:

Originally Posted by sup hezbollah

Am I crazy for wanting to see World War 3?

its the USA vs rest of the world

in other words,

Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda/Israel/Tibet/Saudi Arabia are all on the same side against the USA

Quote

02-17-2014 , 03:56 PM

#710

TooRareToDie

banned

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 4,304

^^Aren't there a bunch of USA-adverse terror-cells in Quebec, too?

Quote

02-17-2014 , 04:40 PM

#711

mungar

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 60

Surprised this thread has gone so long. Rest of the world, AINEC. China+Russia+Iran would win easily, let alone with all of Europe and Japan helping out. I assume the only people that think USA has a chance would be deluded Americans. Although, I'd like to think most Americans are smart enough to know they'd be annihilated. Maybe that's my mistake for giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 04:53 PM

#712

sup hezbollah

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,559

I am equally surprised this thread has gone this long and then some. Dumbest question ever.

U.S. would be pummelled back into the stone age before we even knew what hit us, and that is extremely obvious to anyone with the tiniest shred of common sense.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 07:23 PM

#713

pig4bill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 35,184

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekid345

its the USA vs rest of the world

in other words,

Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda/Israel/Tibet/Saudi Arabia are all on the same side against the USA

That's just it. They won't be able to stop squabbling amongst each other for long, and without the U.S. there to put an end to it, there will be plenty of in-fighting that reduces their effectiveness against us.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 09:03 PM

#714

wiper

still catching up

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 42,642

Quote:

Originally Posted by sup hezbollah

U.S. would be pummelled back into the stone age before we even knew what hit us, and that is extremely obvious to anyone with the tiniest shred of common sense.

i like the irony of you being the one who decides what constitutes common sense.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 09:17 PM

#715

sup hezbollah

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,559

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiper

i like the irony of you being the one who decides what constitutes common sense.

Let us not pretend common sense and being a massive unGodly degenerate are one and the same issue.

That being said, you can't argue with my point. We would be mobbed into absolute oblivion.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 09:27 PM

#716

wiper

still catching up

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 42,642

well, like everything...that depends.

Quote

02-17-2014 , 09:31 PM

#717

sup hezbollah

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,559

Depends on what? The U.S. cant hold up the entire worlds jockstrap.

Just China and Russia would be enough to destroy the U.S.

And you gonna throw in ALL OTHER WORLD MILITARIES too just to boot? How is this even being discussed?

Quote

02-17-2014 , 09:41 PM

#718

ShaneG

self-banned

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 883

Chinese Military alone would destroy the USA on sheer numbers, although I think man for man the US has an edge with their deadly close combat training.

It's a dumb hypothetical though, as in reality we know that the US is allied with other nations such as the UK.

On a side note, nukes seem like a major hoax anyway, it makes no sense to create a nuclear bomb as it's a lose/lose proposition.

Quote

02-18-2014 , 01:42 AM

#719

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 58,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by sup hezbollah

In any non-nuclear/biological/chemical war, the US vs. China and Russia would probably stalemate, but the casualties would easily be 10, maybe 20-1 in the US's favor. We couldn't invade and control large areas for long, but we could possibly topple their governments and leave them ungovernable hell-holes. We specialize in that.

Quote

02-18-2014 , 01:47 AM

#720

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 58,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaneG

Do you know how many times China has been conquered?

The size of the army in China in 1937, just before being annihilated by the Japanese (who we defeated), wasn't much smaller than it is today.

And "close combat training"????????????

Quote

02-18-2014 , 01:51 AM

#721

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 58,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by sup hezbollah

I think the US loses in a protracted war, but the ALL OTHER WORLD MILITARIES is overly dramatic. Only a handful of countries could project any force at all at any distance, let alone across an ocean.

Quote

02-18-2014 , 05:36 AM

#722

Deurdy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 10,646

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

Do you know how many times China has been conquered?

The size of the army in China in 1937, just before being annihilated by the Japanese (who we defeated), wasn't much smaller than it is today.

Disclaimer: results in the past offer no guarantee for the future.

Also China is obv much wealthier, powerful and advanced than over 60 years ago.
So the past really isn't a relevant reference here.

Quote

02-18-2014 , 07:56 AM

#723

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 20,414

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaneG

Chinese Military alone would destroy the USA on sheer numbers.

How is the Yellow Horde getting here?

Quote

02-18-2014 , 08:48 AM

#724

dkgojackets

DKGOAT

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 86,120

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deurdy

Disclaimer: results in the past offer no guarantee for the future.

Also China is obv much wealthier, powerful and advanced than over 60 years ago.
So the past really isn't a relevant reference here.

its relevant when the post he replied to stated china would win by "sheer numbers" which is obviously a lie

Quote

02-18-2014 , 08:56 AM

#725

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

How is the Yellow Horde getting here?

Lots of people overlooking this ITT. Also overlooking that USA has more combat aircraft, aircraft carriers, and cruisers/battleships than ROW combined.

Population size means nothing in a war fought across oceans by air and sea. Billions of Chinese can't get here to fight, only a small number can.

Quote

Page 29 of 35

First

9 19 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 29 of 35

First

9 19 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Last