- 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
re: If the entire world attacked the USA...
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:42 am to beauchristopher
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:42 am to beauchristopher
quote:
A lot of the world is made up by India, seriously peaceful people.
go tell an Indian you believe Pakistan is superior and see how peaceful that motherfricker is
1
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
India isn't as much peaceful as the people are just blindly obedient.
I wish we had a caste system.
I wish we had a caste system.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:54 am to pensacola
you would need a supervillain to take on the US
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:56 am to pensacola
I don't think the entire world could put up the navy and the air force that the US has.
With one year warning they would roll planes and ships out of mothballs as well.
With one year warning they would roll planes and ships out of mothballs as well.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:56 am to KCM0Tiger
quote:
Does anyone honestly believe the USA could defeat a team of countries 2-10 in that list, let alone the rest of the world too?
in a defensive war? it wouldn't be close
we couldn't offensively go, win, and occupy, though
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:58 am to LaFlyer
quote:
The bombing started in January against a non existent airforce and an army of ill equipped and trained, stationary forces with no ability to see
quote:
By 1990 (according to Keith Shimko) the Iraqi army fielded nearly one million men, 5,700 tanks, 3,700 artillery pieces and 950 combat aircraft.
The Iraqi Air Force seems nonexistent now because we established air superiority and took them out.
You are misunderstanding the combat philosophy that air power alone cannot occupy land to extend to a defensive scenario. In this situation, we're talking about shooting fish in a barrel. Air power alone would not eliminate the threat, but it would most certainly reduce it to a minimal level of enemy troops in hiding, which is when our ground troops would come in to clean up.
So I think we're probably arguing something we actually agree on. When is the war "won", when the last soldier is killed or gives up or when the attacking force is largely destroyed?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 8:59 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
In this situation, we're talking about shooting fish in a barrel.
seriously we would bomb the rest of the world until we had no more bombs to drop
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:02 am to pensacola
quote:
If the entire world attacked the USA...
... And we had 1 year advance warning. No nukes or WMD allowed by anyone. Who wins?
We do, because while they are fricking around for a year thinking about how they're going to invade the USA, we'll be conventional bombing the frick out of every worthwhile military base and fleet in the rest of the world. 1 year advance warning... HA! Rookie mistake, World.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
seriously we would bomb the rest of the world until we had no more bombs to drop
And they would keep coming.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:26 am to John McClane
The South would win.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:32 am to pensacola
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:35 am to CadesCove
quote:
And they would keep coming.
they wouldn't have the capabilities to do much. they may have an initial wave, but won't have sea or air capabilities afterward. hell we'd likely be able to seriously cripple their general manufacturing and power capabilities, also.
we're playing defense, not offense.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:49 am to Bushmaster
quote:
We could put the liberals and welfare queens out front as cannon fodder.
Didn't take long for the redneck thread to turn into this.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:51 am to pensacola
I'd put my money on the world.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they wouldn't have the capabilities to do much. they may have an initial wave, but won't have sea or air capabilities afterward. hell we'd likely be able to seriously cripple their general manufacturing and power capabilities, also.
we're playing defense, not offense.
If we've had a year to prepare, so have they... and they have far more manufacturing capabilities than we do during that year to build more boats, more planes, more guns, more ammo, , etc..., and maybe most importantly more preserved food supplies. They've also had time to position these resources and their people wherever they see fit. And time to study our defenses with their satellites the same as we'd be studying their efforts with ours.
The world probably has enough bombs to level every worthwhile city in the USA if they could get into our airspace, and with enough planes they probably could.
Pretty even fight I think... I'd bet on the USA because of the defensive position, but it's no easy win.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:03 am to pensacola
I haven't read all 13 pages so I'm not sure if this point has been brought up. I don't know if we would win, but the world would be up in flames with us. What makes us so powerful is our industrial capability.
Right now we are technically in peace time. Out military is not fully mobilized. If we were to switch to a war economy we could easily manufacture enough weapons, ships, planes, tanks, drones, whatever to fight.
We already proved this in WWII. By the end of that war the US had 50 carriers in the Pacific and a massive army and air corps in Europe. With todays tech we could surpass that easily.
My only concern is the will for the people to fight that kind of war. How many are really willing to live or die in that kind of blazing hell.
Right now we are technically in peace time. Out military is not fully mobilized. If we were to switch to a war economy we could easily manufacture enough weapons, ships, planes, tanks, drones, whatever to fight.
We already proved this in WWII. By the end of that war the US had 50 carriers in the Pacific and a massive army and air corps in Europe. With todays tech we could surpass that easily.
My only concern is the will for the people to fight that kind of war. How many are really willing to live or die in that kind of blazing hell.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:05 am to pensacola
If you are saying we have home field as well, USA! USA! USA! especially with the warning and no WMDs/Nukes.
It would be bloody as all get out, but even with the 7 billion people the Chinese would throw at us, we have the weaponry and resources to keep going.
We do not NEED to import anything to fight a war, our supply lines are right here, the others would have to resupply over distance. We win no doubt.
Unless Obama is still in office then we trip over a red line somewhere and surrender.
It would be bloody as all get out, but even with the 7 billion people the Chinese would throw at us, we have the weaponry and resources to keep going.
We do not NEED to import anything to fight a war, our supply lines are right here, the others would have to resupply over distance. We win no doubt.
Unless Obama is still in office then we trip over a red line somewhere and surrender.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:21 am to CadesCove
quote:
And they would keep coming.
Through a magical portal?
Do you people even know what a blue water naval force is? Or what it takes to perform amphibious operations? Other than the US, only England and France have blue water force projection but their numbers are small.
And of course we always come back to, how are these billions of troops going to eat?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:43 am to pensacola
No nation or group of nations can force a drink from the Ohio river or a footprint in the Appalachians
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:45 am to LSUBoo
quote:
f we've had a year to prepare, so have they... and they have far more manufacturing capabilities than we do during that year to build more boats, more planes, more guns, more ammo, , etc..., and maybe most importantly more preserved food supplies. They've also had time to position these resources and their people wherever they see fit. And time to study our defenses with their satellites the same as we'd be studying their efforts with ours.
they'd have a lot of starving people if they diverted too many resources to the effort, and we'd prevent this with strikes
quote:
The world probably has enough bombs to level every worthwhile city in the USA if they could get into our airspace,
that's a huge if that would not happen with any sort of volume
Page 13 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News