By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mibuokami on 04 March 2011
Edit Thread
AussieGecko said:
Hephaestos said:

Thing is there is no realistic scenario where the US would be invaded by anything....

The US military is currently a good 10 years ahead of any other military in tech, with the closest being russia and France. All other countries in the world rely on outside arms purchase and are de facto dependent on the furnishing country for their wearponry. Even China is lagging way behind, didn't they just test their FIRST stealth plane a few months ago?

The other true factor besides tech is the quantity of gear (tanks/planes/boats.... even if lower tech) and in this aspect too, the US have a big step forward any country (well maybe not russia there, dunno). I mean even if you have 1000 chinese littleman with rifles... they ain't gonna do much against a bomber out of bullet reach...

Lastly, experience... well the US is in every fight...

On the numbers though, if you recall japan, they were many many less than the chinese pre WWII, yet they did manage to cover most of asia... granted, japan is larger than north corea, but  the only factor that enabled them to do this was still the military tech that was way ahead than any other countries arround them.

You cant be serious... 

If anything these latest wars shows US is a susceptible as anyone. If a probably organised military attacked america they have every chance of winning. If China attacks via south america for example the US wouldnt have a chance as they would then be fighting a land war.

And that is only the start, if the "axis of evil" declared war on America it wouldnt be as one sided as you hope imo

EVERYTHING will get nuked before America was seriously 'defeated' via a land invasion, you scenario is unfeasible so long as WMD exist and are in the hand of the US.

What the latest wars have shown is that foreign occupation is damn expensive.

@ Hephaestos
Understand that the Empire of Japan is not sustainable, Japan's policy during the war was loot and pillage because they knew that they cannot hold so much territory, they were stretched thin on logistic and supply and also occupied some territory that saw them as liberators rather than foreign conqueror (Indonesia for example). On top of that the disparity in technology as you yourself mention was severe; knife versus gun is a losing proposition. Today's war are significantly different, because no matter how skewed the tech of 2 opposing nation is, its still gun versus gun when it comes a forced occupation.