Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
buoy

United States vs The Rest Of The World - War. Who wins?

Recommended Posts

There has been a lot of talk about the US striking Syria... and then the whole fiasco about Russia bringing in their "Carrier Killer" fleet to deal with the US Carrier group(s) in the vicinity. Then many forums around the world erupted with who would win - Carrier vs Carrier Killing Frigates and / or Carrier Group vs Submarines? What gives?

 

... and then there was this video that really set the tone...

 

So I just thought after reading a whole bunch of complete and utter nonsense on other forums, why not just take this all the way. You know you want to:

 

 

UNITED STATES VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD - GLOBAL CONFLICT - INVADE THE USA / USA INVADES THE WORLD. WHO WINS?

==========================================================================================================

 

The Rules: No Nukes. Why? Because if nukes are used, everyone loses... and we can't have that... and we really want a winner here.

 

What to take into account:

 

MILITARY- AIR/SEA and LAND firepower. How advanced? How numerous? How spread out? How much can they defend? How effective are they against their counterparts. What submarines you using? What sattelites / surveillance / terrorist groups you running with?

 

HISTORY- You remember World War 2 right? How many countries vs how many countries? Who jumped in? Does that gleam anything in todays conflict?

 

RESOURCES- You got planes? Check. You got fuel to put in those planes? You got access to oil fields? Can your enemies torch those oil fields making it hard to get to the oil? Can you feed your citizens? Where are your factories? Are they off-shore? Do you have any that can build shit?

 

POPULATION- How many fighting ready people do you have? How many people are too old / too young / too skinny / to incredibly obese to fight?

 

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: I know nukes are ruled out but not too sure on this one. Include it if you have a seethingly brilliant idea.

 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE - Who is hacking who? Internet attacks - is that even a "thing" at this stage? Do we use this to gather intelligence about the enemy? etc

 

And finally, STRATEGY.

 

Exactly what series of events unfold. Who attacks what? What gets attacked? What strategic points of interest need to be maintained. OH NO SOMEBODY launched an ICBM. But we said no nukes right? That's right.... no nukes... but those ICBMs can use conventional warheads right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly think china could take USA on its own simply due to larger numbers, but maybe USA could even the playing field with their more advanced weaponry. Definitely not the world though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should rename title "Israel with USA vs World"

 

I still don't know who would win though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this and i think when a few of our guys that actually start mixing Buoys questions into a well thought out strategic answer this thread could be an interesting insight that is quite relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly think china could take USA on its own simply due to larger numbers, but maybe USA could even the playing field with their more advanced weaponry. Definitely not the world though.

 

Numbers mean nothing when you lack the technology to support them.

Iraq had an army of over 1 million men.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll think twice about that when you have 1.3 billion Chinamen running at you with $2 sharpener blades on the end of a broom stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly think china could take USA on its own simply due to larger numbers, but maybe USA could even the playing field with their more advanced weaponry. Definitely not the world though.

 

Numbers mean nothing when you lack the technology to support them.

Iraq had an army of over 1 million men.......

 

Keyword *had*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That first link, while it's hard to acquire 100% correct information on what most countries would have has suprised me on a few things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll think twice about that when you have 1.3 billion Chinamen running at you with $2 sharpener blades on the end of a broom stick.

 

And how do you propose they get all those men to the USA to actually do damage?

They have a navy sporting 1950's technology, and a store bought soviet air force.

The only time an army like that would be of use is in defence, and the USA has thousands of tanks and aircraft that could make short work of such a force.

This is of course ignoring the sheer logistics involved in transporting that many human beings to one place where they can pose any considerable threat.

 

MOAB's and miniguns trump meat.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same way they migrated to Australia. On doors...lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same way they migrated to Australia. On doors...lol

I give you 11/10 for non-pc :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to all of your questions is the kind of thing strategic analysts, senior military commanders and presidencies would spend their entire careers monitoring and adjusting to ensure their country remains the dominant superpower in the world. From this audience, you are not going to get a sophisticated answer which accurately considers every parameter you have set. Partly because this is a forum attended by not many in the know, partly because those in the know wouldn't be able to answer it,and partly because a single half-thought out response would take more effort than a university thesis. But most importantly, your restriction regarding the use of nuclear weapons rules out an important possible course of action and is simply not realistic. You want to know who will win a war when you pick and choose their weapons? come on man. Nuclear weapons are there for use just as much as they are there with no intent for ever being used. They are a strategic weapon that holds countries at bay, not because a country threatens to use them, but because other countries know they can if you really need to. That's a big part of the strategic defence for all of the major players... UK, US, Russia, India, Israel, China ect. Same reason Kim jong dipshit and Iran pursue development in them. Syria's chemical weapons exist for much the same reason - it stops Israel from crushing them.

 

True, carrier groups are not invincible. A well thought out attack by a well equipped and capable military could potentially do a significant amount of damage. But you have to appreciate that such an action would not go unpunished, it would be an act of war and would not be fixed with a round of beers and a handshake. Regardless of all the logistical, financial and technological burdens and capabilities you would need to consider in a war between Russia and the US, there is an inescapable fact that neither country can realistically be defeated militarily without the use of nuclear weapons. So, if destroying a carrier group is an act of war, and the only way to win that war is to use nukes, pretty sure that's what they will do.

 

Russia has several reasons to discourage the US from intervening overtly in Syria, likewise the US has several reasons for intervening. When it comes down to all the pros and cons though, neither side, Russia nor the US, would realistically be willing to overstep the mark and commit to nuclear war with each other over Syria. Moving extra Russian vessels into the Med is a strategic bluff. Not a bluff in the sense that they don't have the goods to destroy some US ships, but a bluff in the sense that the Russians know the US wont risk war with Russia and Russia can't afford to take on the US. So by virtue of both sides having the immediate capability but lacking the desire to absorb such a destructive conflict, neither side will budge until a situational change in Syria permits the US to upscale or back off without losing face. Which inevitably is what will happen. Syria will handover most (they will say all but thats crazy, they are a strategic weapon that keeps israel at bay so they would be mad to give them all away) of their chemical weapons, the US will be able to back off and say that their threat of intervention made that happen, and everyone will go back to what they were doing before.

Edited by boost_bus180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boost_bus180 that was a great read. Thanks!

 

Yes taking out the nuke from the equation could be a rather naive rule to enforce which would normally not properly reflect the reality of war - but even if it were true, in the sprit of forum discussion and to get the cogs of peoples minds to tick over, these things can spark thinking processes that (I'm hoping) could prove to be very interesting to read. Otherwise, I think we all know that there would be little to debate since the "cold" nature of the nuclear standoff creates very few options for actual conflict. An irony at the best of times.

 

However I must reflect on the absurd nature of the topic at hand (if one can look past it) and then pose the question: is a no-nuke scenario really so far fetched if you consider the 2-sides scenario? For example, if we can assume that a nuclear strike would mean "mutually assured destruction" since using any nuke from one side to the other would result in a "full scale retalitory strike" which was the whole point of the "cold" war in the 60s 70s and 80s one would feel then that the nuclear option would be the very last option on the table and that one would exercise all conventional means to engage the enemy across all fronts (unless you consider nukes to be a first strike weapon in which case we can just close the thread after 1 paragraph - missiles kill the human race, birds and the bees start off new life colonization initiative).

 

Thus, if that mentality is followed by all parties involved then the reasoning woudl be that using nukes is such a drastic measure as to be staved off until the last moment and, with so many variables from the chain of command to individual impairment of launch capabilities one would even guess as to whether leaving the nuclear option until later would also mean the actual ability to launch a coordinated strike also diminishes due to impairment from the conventional war being fought preceding that moment.

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that nuclear is a no-win situation:

Some people describe this as being in a situation similar to someone having a gun. If the other person has a gun, you both point it to each other but nobody shoots and a dialogue opens up. However, if one person has a gun and the other doesn't, a dialogue would usually be restricted to a series of orders given by the person with the gun. A conventional army may be considered the equivalent of a knuckle buster perhaps? Something that isn't lethal straight off the bat and requires a lot of effort and repeated strikes to deal significant damage?

 

Now, neither side would engage in a fist fight since both of them are holding guns to each other (read: the nuclear deterrant) but if both sides holstered their guns you'd very quickly have a fist fight on your hands (read: conventional warfare).

 

But I don't think that is a completely realistic analogy - as if one person holsters their gun, the other person can shoot them with little consequence to themselves. If I were to create an analogy to the nuclear arms situation I would firstly place the 2 people in a very small room, perhpas 4m x 4m. Then, consider for a moment that the weapons they were holding were not simply guns but perhaps bazookas or panzerfaust... AND they had knuckle-busters. Now, if they both wanted to get out of this sorry situation the panzerfaust has dire consequences for both sides even if only one fires (more realistic imho) and they'd probably engage in a knuckle busting fight because the bazooka is just going to spell doom for both of them.

 

 

 

 

The other point this raises is, perhaps, whether having a conventional army is required at all if you have nuclear weapons as a deterrant?

 

 

 

 

I scoured a few other forums where a similar debate is playing out and, just to add some wood to the fire I'm going to post a few of the more eloquent quotes below:

 

three words:No energy independence
Air force and navy are irrelevant if we're talking about invading first world nations. ICBMs can reach any city in the US, and we have no way to stop it short of a preemptive strike on all missile silos. The ICBMs can be armed with regular bombs, thus not violating the nuke rule.
They've been fighting the Taliban for 7 years AND THE TALIBAN IS WINNING. Any other questions?

 

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

The biggest exporter of oil to the US is Canada. The third biggest is Mexico. It wouldn't take much effort for the US to overrun their oil fields should they attack us. At that point the US would have enough oil to feed the American military.

 

 

Yes, it would most definitely take "much effort". Particularly when Canada and Mexico would have the military support of the rest of the planet.

 

But that point is moot. You don't need to stop them from taking over the oil fields. You merely need to prevent them from getting the oil out of it or converting it to something useful. A few well placed bombs or missiles in the fields (and especially in refineries) will do the trick. Look at what happened when one hurricane (Katrina) went through the Carribean. Refineries are big fat soft targets.

 

What a bunch of nationalistic blind brain washed kids.I am amazed to see young people as myself are looking at a war as being so easy.

Since I had the opportunity to receive a multi- international education I have come to understand a DIFFERENT history than what some of you may learn in USA.

First point.

In the 2nd WW, USA itself on the same continent with Germany would have been destroyed by the German army in matter of months(I am not a fan of germany , I am just using my common sense)- ask any real historian. USA came in when everybody was tired and out of resources. Its like a regular Joe coming in the 12 round of a heavyweight boxing fight, after the two knock eachother out, clears the ring from the bodyes and declares himself the victor.

2nd point

The rest of the world attacking suddenly USA, USA (or any other country) would surrender within 1 week, to avoid a population massacre. Modern warfare includes biological weapons, long range nukes, and desinformation technologioes.

3rd and 4th point

USA would collapse in a war crisis, because its too damn dependednt on gas, everything is so spreaded,there is no functional and advanced public transportation as railroads,basically the economy would collapse when misiles would hit the oil rafineries,and in the winter time the north would starve to death.

Things are not as smooth as we may think they are. Look at the slow slughish 9/11 or new orleans response coming from the defense department. US autorities couldn t deal with a flood in New Orleans..........for god sake...how are they going to deal with nukes, planes and people coming suddlenly from everywhere.

In the end- a lesson that history is always teaching us:

 

Every great empire/power has its end at one point in time.-unfortunately

 

China launches a ICBM at the U.S., here's the next step: the U.S. decimates Beijing from Okinawa.

 

 

Then Russia, Israel, the UK decimate and every other nation on the planet with ICBMs proceed to decimate every US oil refinery.

 

 

Naval superiority cannot be underestimated,

 

 

First of all, are you so stupid you don't even know how to express the point you wanted to make? You meant to say that it cannot be OVERestimated, not UNDERestimated.

 

And you know what? It CAN be overestimated. Because of those ships don't have fuel to run on or if the planes the aircraft carriers don't have fuel to fly then they are of no use to anyone

 

and the U.S. is miles ahead of the rest of the world in this regard.

 

 

The US is NOT miles ahead of the rest of the world in this regard. We are not longer even METERS ahead of the rest of the world in this regard. The technology behind even the most advanced US fighters and subs is commonplace within the world now. Case in point: The Joint Strike Fighter.

 

You people cannot possibly be this stupid. The United States Military a few years ago changed the emphasis from being able to fight wars on two fronts to being able to fight wars on ONE front. How on earth do you think they can possibly fight a war on 23 different fronts?

 

Listen up. You are ignorant of the subject at hand. The United States Military is a shadow of what it once was. We cannot even win a war in f***ing IRAQ for Christ's sake.

 

But probably the funniest and most insightful comment was this one:

 

Easy, we get our asses handed to us on a stick unless we take Canada out of the "rest of the world". Even then we wouldn't last 6 months.

 

We fire up all the jets, ships, etc, and after about 45 days of bombing the sh*t out of stuff we run out of fuel. Russia and China take our overseas resources in a cakewalk, then move on Alaska and Hawaii. Commonwealths declare themselves independent now that they don't have to pay back anything.

 

Meanwhile back at the home front gas is $25 a gallon. China starts dumping dollars and our highly leveraged economy collapses. The end of worlders commence to hording and shoot anyone that steps inside rifle range, all the right wing nut bags commence playing GI Joe forming fifedoms in every nook and cranny. In 18-24 months we're a third world country with no functioning government and we splinter into a bunch of Balkanized regions and the country as it stands ceases to exist without a single foreign troop landing on the lower 48.

 

Read more: http://www.letsrun.c...0#ixzz2fdNo0ev0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some interesting remarks in those quotes, some are well worded but still incredibly naive and inaccurate. There are a few key points raised in those quotes which deserve addressing.

 

Firstly, the whole oil supply thing. That guy saying the US could invade Canada for it's oil is on smack. Canada is the 2nd closest ally of the US (2nd to the UK). They wouldn't have to invade Canada for shit, if they needed it, they would get it. That's what allies do. Take a few steps back though, back in the day of the cold war (back when most people reading this were still in their dad's sack) the US had oil reserves to last them 40 or so years. That wasn't reserves still yet to be mined, that was war stocks ready to go. These days they have nuclear energy coming out the wazoo, nuclear powered submarines and ships that don't consume ridiculous amounts of oil to get the job done and decades worth of fuel mining and research. I'm not sure how the dependence on oil has changed with the availability of alternative fuels versus larger military consumption, but I'd confidently say that isn't going to stop them in their tracks in the short term.

 

Secondly, the whole US cant win the afghan/iraq war bullshit. Both of those wars are counter insurgency conflicts - very different from state vs state conflict. There is much debate out there on the best way to fight a counter insurgency, with the method used in Iraq and Afghanistan arguably not the best, but that's a whole different topic. When the US did operation desert storm in the early 90s (US vs Iraq in a conventional war) it was done and dusted in 48hrs.

 

The US glory days being over? Well sure, the technological and capability gap between the US and everyone else isn't as big as it used to be. That's not because the US has gone to shit, it's because everyone is catching up. There are still some areas though where they remain miles in front.

 

Yes, they used to have a strategic policy of being able to fight 2 state vs state conflicts on two fronts at the same time while still retaining a capability to fight a 3rd. This has decreased in scale these days but not because they can't do it, its just so damn expensive and money is tight at the moment. If they needed to do it though they still could, its not as though they destroyed their kit and have forgotten what they knew. As it stands though, the US military still has more kit, better kit, better personnel and greater capability than any other single nation. Not to mention they have far more experience in how to fight wars, and how to sustain them logistically for long periods of time (afghan is over a decade). You can't overstate the value in lessons learned from going through all that. Sure, 9/11 was a big hit, but it instigated a revolution in the way US agencies cooperate, which enhanced their intelligence and war machines by huge amounts.

 

Anyways, back to your topic...

 

I know it sounds like I am a pro-US groupy who can't get enough of some yanks cock down my throat, but you have to be incredibly naive to think that the US would role over and pussy out of a conflict that threatened their existence. It would take an enormous amount of effort to get the US on the back foot, and that kind of muscle isn't going to be generated by 1 or 2 countries working together. There are a lot of anti-US countries out there but none of them can take on the US by themselves and luckily enough, most of those countries hate each other or are too disfunctional to do anything worth while outside of their own back yard. No doubt a big reason why the US has so many fingers in pies and messing with shit around the world.

 

For arguments sake, even if plenty of countries did get the act together and decided to take on the US. The US is not alone. The main allies on the US side would all be there including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Israel, Germany and Japan would no doubt get on board. Not to mention France, South Korea and India. That's 3 of the world's super powers united on the same team and 5 or 6 that are nuclear armed. There would be others too, but between those listed countries alone, the US has a pretty staunch offence and defence that spans the world.

 

Russia would get Iran, China might participate but they're pretty self absorbed and would rather sit on the sidelines and benefit from the rest of the world getting weaker while they got stronger. They're not practiced at fighting with anyone but themselves so would be more inclined to provide materiel and funding to Russian forces than actually committing troops. Normally Russia would get Syria, but Assad is a bit preoccupied at the moment. I doubt the arab nations would get involved willingly, nothing much in it for them but if they were, I imagine the US is overall more valuable to them than Russia. That and most Arabs hate Iran. African countries don't offer much except land for bases, which the US allies have plenty of on that continent. North Korea is aligned with Russia but their leader is a bit crazy so I don't think the Russians would enable him any more than necessary to keep the south and Japan preoccupied.

 

WW3 on the same scale as WW2 is always a possibility but is decreasing in likelihood all the time. The desire to crush them is still as strong as ever but team USA is just too strong in a conventional war setting. Another 10 years of tech advancement and military modernization might deliver different odds, but for now that's how I see it and why there hasn't been a war of that scale since the 1940s. Most countries these days are interdependent on other countries for their economy and resources, not too many could survive an all out war these days and even fewer would want to risk fighting a war that they might not win.

Edited by boost_bus180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for these insights boost_bus180 and they are clearly well thought out. I will want to point out, however, that this is a hypothetical situation where the United States is (for reasons undisclosed or not necessarily made clear) pitted against the rest of the world. If we follow the hypothetical nature of the question, then:

 

- Canada won't give their oil to the US.

- Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea and Russia et al will not side with the US.

- It is the US "versus the rest of the world" so there must be something forcing these other nations to put aside their differences and work together in the greatest capacity they can muster. That means you'll have the above said countries and more: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea and Russia.... and China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Egypt et al working together against the united states.

 

If I'm going to try and storytell a scenario where this would ever happen (you'll have to stretch your imagination to great proportions to stomach this, but...) suppose a collaboration of inside secret agents and hackers overloaded several nuclear reactors across the united states - many dozens of reactors... and they are leaking profusely radioactive material contaminating massive amounts of the populace. A presidential order is given to migrate the entire population out of the country. At the same time almost overnight Wall Street sees the largest single drop in investor confidence of the modern age. Over 5 trillion US dollars are dumped as the economy shrinks by over 50% creating the largest deepest depression overnight. 3/4ths of the country is instantly bankrupt. With continued exposure, literally millions of people are going to die of radiation poisoning. The situation becomes desperate almost immediately. Seeing the incredible situation unfold in the US and their economy completely go to shit, other countries offer to send limited foreign aid but to prevent their own economies from collapsing (and they have all taken a tremendous hit since many are tied very closely to the US economy) their offerings amount to the saving of a few percent of the total population. This scenario is deemed completely unacceptable by congress which passes a motion to institute martial law, full population draft and order the entire combined forces of the US army and navy to "find and claim, by force, civilian refuge areas for as much of the population as possible as quickly as possible even if it violates international law. For the good of the American people which we are charged to protect at all costs, we must do the unthinkable. May the rest of the world understand our position and what we are forced to do. May God forgive us." land that is not contaminated by radiation which immediately starts warfronts in the canadian and mexican borders where those countries troops have placed their entire compliment of forces to protect their soverign borders. A plea for international intervention is sent out by both Canda and Mexico and within 24 hours, projecting that this new sudden world threat could easily spill out past canada and mexico, emergency meetings with heads of the G7 and G20 arrive quickly to amass the largest ever coalition of defense forces against the United States to "prevent the advance of US forces from occupying and taking over the rest of the world in an attempt to reclaim new territory through use of arms - a move given the current situation - would undoubtedly be a permanent occupation if allowed to proceed".

 

Cue dramatic music.

 

The result of this peculiar and highly fantastic situation is... that nuclear weapons are clearly now off the table. The United States needs clean radio-active-free land, so nuking other contries goes against their objectives. The rest of the world can't nuke the US because the United States, although injured and bankrupt, still retains the ability to respond to any nuclear strike with a nuclear strike of its own... and quickly makes this policy known to the world: "Any nuclear strike against the United States will automatically result in a full-scale retalitory strike" - which basically means that any aggressor wanting to use even one or two nuclear strikes for a strategic advantage threatens a full scale response - a tactic of mutually assured destruction - which discourages (as we've seen in the cold war) any nuclear strikes at all.

 

So now with this crazy scenario we have a situation where the United States 1- Is against the rest of the world and 2- will not use nukes (on either side).

 

In any case, it's just a hypothetical situation. By thinking it through via these constraints we can dream up new Call of Duty scenarios at least :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when you guys get like this, will read after work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kinda hoping some others would chime in with their perspectives but in the meantime, I'll have another go. I'll try to keep this one on track

 

Firstly, your imagination is the stuff of genius. If you can't make a buck out of that throughout your life, something has gone very wrong. Anyways, lets go with your scenario....

 

I would imagine that Canada presents a much more suitable country to invade than Mexico does. Similar climate, same language, same standards of infrastructure, their population shower, whole country is flush with natural resources and it has bulk land suitable for farming and sustainable living. Lets face it, the only good thing about Mexico is spring break parties. So with that in mind, I would expect the US to concentrate their forces on claiming Canadian land. In the time it takes the international community to get their leaders out of bed to decide on a response, dev up a military plan and put it into action, the US would be weeks into the invasion which would see them pretty well school the Canadian military, whilst sustaining relatively small losses on the US side. By the time there is a response, the US would have secured key infrastructure and established a solid foothold. I have to assume the US mainland is already very well defended and they would probably already incorporate Canada's landmass into its strategic defence plan, so it wouldn't take that much extra work to beef it up to fend off an international response on their newly acquired land.

 

The US has hundreds of thousands of troops, vehicles, aircraft and naval assets stationed around the world. There is a large presence in Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Afghanistan, Qatar and Germany just to name a few. They are seriously everywhere. As these host nations and allies have suddenly turned hostile, it would be unwise and unsustainable to stay put or reinforce many of these contingents, so they would try to withdraw and consolidate at a more secure base, surrender or die fighting. Some would make it, some wouldn't. This could potentially result in large losses to US military personnel and hardware, but that wouldn't be too detrimental. The reason I say that is all of those deployed forces are there to fight/support other conflicts and maintain the status quo around the world. If the US no longer gave a shit about doing all that, then all of those forces wouldn't necessarily be critical to the overall US survival. Consolidation of these forces would probably occur in the Middle East or North Africa, as they already have bulk hardware there and will remain the dominant force in the region with the ability to defend itself. This location also positions these forces favourably for a counter-attack against any European or Asian aggressor.

 

The only way to push the US invading force back into the contaminated and unlivable US would be with bulk ground forces. So how do they get there? By sea? The US has the Pacific and Atlantic oceans between them and the rest of the world, and has 11 carrier strike groups in their Navy to protect it. Not to mention the submarine fleets that could be anywhere in the world to deliver devastating attacks (Iraq and Libya conflicts are prime examples of their destructive power). The US navy has by far the most intimidating and obscenely overpowered Navy in the world. In all honesty, even if the rest of the world sent their Navies to do battle I think they could still come out on top. So that option is out. What about Air insertion? Again, the US Airforce and ground forces would make short work of that approach, so I doubt they would even try.

 

I think the real issue that your G20 and G7 summits would be talking about isn't actually how do we save poor old Canada and make the US pay, it would be more like FUUUUUUUUUU!!! Now what do we do with the world's mess that the US used to take care of?!?!

 

Those US forces dispersed across the world are largely there to keep the status quo of the world in tact. Many countries are able to exist only because they are afforded protection under the umbrella of the US military (Australia is one of these). If the US were to revert into survival mode and not give a damn about anything else, many countries would invade each other and you would see fantastically brutal and catastrophic wars flare up all over the globe. Pakistan and India would be at it, China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, Japan would kick start its industry to rebuild its military and do god knows what, China could do whatever it wanted in the South China Sea and shit all over South East Asia. Suddenly there would be nothing much stopping Indonesia invading Northern Australia or Timor or PNG. Arab nations wouldn't know what to do with each other, Israel would just start bombing everything it could before their neighbours got the same idea, NATO suddenly becomes as useless as the UN but Africa would still have aids and carry on as per usual. I suppose this would open the doors wide open for China to step up and become the dominant superpower with no peer or counter balancing force. That will be interesting to say the least.

 

Back in the new US of Canada, the US dollar would be no more. Weapons, ammunition, fuel and precious metals like gold would become the currencies that matter. People would start their end of world hoarding and the US and the wider world as we know it would be gone for good. Would the US disappear or simply morf into a gigantic version of Israel, who knows.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by boost_bus180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do i get my CA18 to make that pigeon noise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Mad Jokes.. just had a big read..

 

Awesome :thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, both the USA and UK probably have far more technology hidden for a rainy day than they let on, moreso the USA.

 

If a war ever broke out between the USA and the rest of the world, one of the first things the USA would do is shoot down all of the satellites in the sky except for their own.

Second they would unleash their full arsenal of technology in an attempt to wipe out everybody elses military.

 

And i don't think it would be accurate to completely disregard nukes, because if there was any remote possibility that the USA is about to be invaded and lose, they would sooner nuke the entire world than let their country and its tech fall into enemy hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just a wild thought i had while daydreaming today at work, perhaps... the invasion has already began!

 

Lets take China for example, according to Wikipedia (i know, i know, not a very reliable source of information but bear with me) there are currently 3.3 million Chinese Americans living in the US of A. The majority are in California.

 

Now... what if... what if these Chinese American Migrants are the attacking force? what if, since the 40's, Migrants have been sleeper agents, sent over to build a invading army from the inside. They speak Mandarin, i cant understand that, for all i know, every day in China town its like "not long until we attack hey bob?" "yep soon soon, i need to get some more ammo for my AR15"

 

And its not like guns are hard to get over there, Join the NRA, get a license (if you even need one?) and stockpile your bullet proof vests and assault rifles. Now whats to stop on say, who knows Chinese new year, in every city, they all have their AK47's under their traditional garments, then bang, midnight, guns come out, police caught off guard, example there are nearly 400 thousand of them in new york!

 

Say squads of Chinese sleeper agent death squads that are 30-40 man strong each hits all emergency response stations with assault weapons, bullet proof vests etc. Then power plants, and gas utilities etc. The hardest to attack would be military bases, but they could destroy news buildings and towers etc. then imagine this is happening in most major city's, ultimately these home grown terrorists would be defeated by national guard/military, but the distraction/ disorientation/ chaos that would ensue would pave way for a external attack from the Chinese military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just a wild thought i had while daydreaming today at work, perhaps... the invasion has already began!

 

Lets take China for example, according to Wikipedia (i know, i know, not a very reliable source of information but bear with me) there are currently 3.3 million Chinese Americans living in the US of A. The majority are in California.

 

Now... what if... what if these Chinese American Migrants are the attacking force? what if, since the 40's, Migrants have been sleeper agents, sent over to build a invading army from the inside. They speak Mandarin, i cant understand that, for all i know, every day in China town its like "not long until we attack hey bob?" "yep soon soon, i need to get some more ammo for my AR15"

 

And its not like guns are hard to get over there, Join the NRA, get a license (if you even need one?) and stockpile your bullet proof vests and assault rifles. Now whats to stop on say, who knows Chinese new year, in every city, they all have their AK47's under their traditional garments, then bang, midnight, guns come out, police caught off guard, example there are nearly 400 thousand of them in new york!

 

Say squads of Chinese sleeper agent death squads that are 30-40 man strong each hits all emergency response stations with assault weapons, bullet proof vests etc. Then power plants, and gas utilities etc. The hardest to attack would be military bases, but they could destroy news buildings and towers etc. then imagine this is happening in most major city's, ultimately these home grown terrorists would be defeated by national guard/military, but the distraction/ disorientation/ chaos that would ensue would pave way for a external attack from the Chinese military.

 

Would watch thus movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is just a wild thought i had while daydreaming today at work, perhaps... the invasion has already began! Lets take China for example, according to Wikipedia (i know, i know, not a very reliable source of information but bear with me) there are currently 3.3 million Chinese Americans living in the US of A. The majority are in California. Now... what if... what if these Chinese American Migrants are the attacking force? what if, since the 40's, Migrants have been sleeper agents, sent over to build a invading army from the inside. They speak Mandarin, i cant understand that, for all i know, every day in China town its like "not long until we attack hey bob?" "yep soon soon, i need to get some more ammo for my AR15" And its not like guns are hard to get over there, Join the NRA, get a license (if you even need one?) and stockpile your bullet proof vests and assault rifles. Now whats to stop on say, who knows Chinese new year, in every city, they all have their AK47's under their traditional garments, then bang, midnight, guns come out, police caught off guard, example there are nearly 400 thousand of them in new york! Say squads of Chinese sleeper agent death squads that are 30-40 man strong each hits all emergency response stations with assault weapons, bullet proof vests etc. Then power plants, and gas utilities etc. The hardest to attack would be military bases, but they could destroy news buildings and towers etc. then imagine this is happening in most major city's, ultimately these home grown terrorists would be defeated by national guard/military, but the distraction/ disorientation/ chaos that would ensue would pave way for a external attack from the Chinese military.

 

Welcome to the terror watch list :teehee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just a wild thought i had while daydreaming today at work, perhaps... the invasion has already began!

 

Lets take China for example, according to Wikipedia (i know, i know, not a very reliable source of information but bear with me) there are currently 3.3 million Chinese Americans living in the US of A. The majority are in California.

 

Now... what if... what if these Chinese American Migrants are the attacking force? what if, since the 40's, Migrants have been sleeper agents, sent over to build a invading army from the inside. They speak Mandarin, i cant understand that, for all i know, every day in China town its like "not long until we attack hey bob?" "yep soon soon, i need to get some more ammo for my AR15"

 

And its not like guns are hard to get over there, Join the NRA, get a license (if you even need one?) and stockpile your bullet proof vests and assault rifles. Now whats to stop on say, who knows Chinese new year, in every city, they all have their AK47's under their traditional garments, then bang, midnight, guns come out, police caught off guard, example there are nearly 400 thousand of them in new york!

 

Say squads of Chinese sleeper agent death squads that are 30-40 man strong each hits all emergency response stations with assault weapons, bullet proof vests etc. Then power plants, and gas utilities etc. The hardest to attack would be military bases, but they could destroy news buildings and towers etc. then imagine this is happening in most major city's, ultimately these home grown terrorists would be defeated by national guard/military, but the distraction/ disorientation/ chaos that would ensue would pave way for a external attack from the Chinese military.

 

this is going to get me into shit, but extremist Muslims anyone?

 

The previous attack in Britain was had by an english subject... that was an extreme Muslim. Many cells are expected to be living for quite a long time in the country they are going to attack.

 

Russians, Germans ect... would have spies everywhere.... the cold war was full of them gathering information and disinformation.

 

I don't think another world war would be possible... well, not in the WWI & II sense. The war is now economy driven... and who's an economic super power. The country who controls the money controls the world. This is where hacking attacks at other countries are based not on defense information but business and conglomerates and attacks that cripple stock markets to benefit other companies.

 

A few years ago, Rio and BHP wanted to merge... had the government not intervened, it would have given the majority vote to Chinese investors.... think about that.... The biggest customer taking over the biggest supplier. Trouble is, the government is allowing this to happen in other areas such as tourism (the big 4 theme parks) produce (lots of farming land is being bought by foreign investment) in order to "save our economy"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, Rio and BHP wanted to merge... had the government not intervened, it would have given the majority vote to Chinese investors.... think about that.... The biggest customer taking over the biggest supplier. Trouble is, the government is allowing this to happen in other areas such as tourism (the big 4 theme parks) produce (lots of farming land is being bought by foreign investment) in order to "save our economy"...

 

well said

jeff kennet wa the first in australia to start selling off publicy owned assetts like rail buses ect

this was done through lobby groups like the one george soros has something to do with

there is even a political party in australia trying to stop this but i cant remeber the name of it

here it is

http://www.cecaust.com.au/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×