- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/22/17 at 2:45 pm to weagle99
Assuming nuclear weapons are off the table, no.
If nuclear weapons are on the table, no, but we can effectively kill all non-aquatic mammalian life - which may or may never recover.
Great power is an awesome thing, terrible if employed improperly or to ill purposes.
If nuclear weapons are on the table, no, but we can effectively kill all non-aquatic mammalian life - which may or may never recover.
Great power is an awesome thing, terrible if employed improperly or to ill purposes.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:11 pm to slackster
No.
A bunch of countries would get together and go against us and we would get dominated trying to,not only, attack, but also, invade at the same time.
We couldn’t sustain a frontal and play defense at the same time.
A bunch of countries would get together and go against us and we would get dominated trying to,not only, attack, but also, invade at the same time.
We couldn’t sustain a frontal and play defense at the same time.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:27 pm to weagle99
Go back and read history.
No
No
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:40 pm to weagle99
We could barely do that to one wussy country in the middle East.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:43 pm to weagle99
We couldn't conquer Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:46 pm to Pectus
quote:
Yes. There is a graphic showing number of military and vehicles and equipment compared to other countries and we have way way more.
I suppose you don't think logistics are a consideration and shite just magically appears in theaters of operations and no one needs to be resupplied.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:51 pm to CarrolltonTiger
No way our population could supply enough able bodied millennials to sustain a worldwide war, hell a bunch of them would jump at the chance to join the opposition.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:54 pm to weagle99
We could conquer the oceans.
Not land
Not land
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:56 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
I remember when we wanted to propose some kind of alliance with another player, we'd step away from the table and talk in hushed whispers into each other's ear... 
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:58 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
I suppose you don't think logistics are a consideration and shite just magically appears in theaters of operations and no one needs to be resupplied.
This is a major reason why the movie "Red Dawn" and it's remake were so damn ludicrous.
This post was edited on 12/22/17 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 12/22/17 at 3:59 pm to weagle99
taking your question seriously, russia and china are about even matches with us, the rest could only put up a token resistance and would cave rather quickly
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:00 pm to arkiebrian
quote:
In many ways it did decades ago in terms of common language, currency, and popular culture
Just need to get rid of that pesky metric system.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:00 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
We couldn't conquer Afghanistan and Iraq.
+1
This is the best argument as to why we can't possibly conquer the entire world and rule it.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:37 pm to weagle99
quote:
Could the US conquer the entire world if it wanted to?
Assuming we take nukes off the table because ruling over a dead world takes the fun out of it.
No. It's not a question of military might, it's a question of numbers. We simply don't have the numbers to defeat the combined militaries of the world. Eventually the attrition of losses would overwhelm us, especially once China came into play.
While we could take all of North America, we would need a draft just to do that (and that's saying all draft-age citizens would agree to it).
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:39 pm to weagle99
Ask that on the Political board
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:41 pm to weagle99
quote:
defeating militaries
Absolutely.
quote:
imposing US rule on the countries conquered
Absolutely not. Iraq was tough enough.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:44 pm to weagle99
With a few big warheads, we could wipe out the planet with a nuclear winter. We wouldn't be able to enjoy it, since we would be dead too.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:45 pm to weagle99
Nah
Less than 1% of our population eligible to serve actually do.
Most people aren’t cut out for service much less war.
Less than 1% of our population eligible to serve actually do.
Most people aren’t cut out for service much less war.
Posted on 12/22/17 at 4:47 pm to foshizzle
Willingness to do non-pc things is requirement to rule the world.
Be monsters, its easy.
Adhere to geneva convention, not even close.
The op premise of no nukes does not hold water. 6 or 8 countries have nukes and delivery systems.
China russia british commonwealth and france have hydrogen bombs.
Ignoring geneva convention, assassinate all world leaders, use biological warfare, never declare war.
Be monsters, its easy.
Adhere to geneva convention, not even close.
The op premise of no nukes does not hold water. 6 or 8 countries have nukes and delivery systems.
China russia british commonwealth and france have hydrogen bombs.
Ignoring geneva convention, assassinate all world leaders, use biological warfare, never declare war.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News