By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - World War III

SamuelRSmith on 03 November 2008
bouzane said:
A nuclear holocaust followed by a war between the corporatist New World Order and the socialist / communist nations and their allies.

 

What side would Europe be on? Or, dare I say it... the US in a couple of years?



Around the Network
Tispower1 on 03 November 2008
Retrasado said:
hunter_alien said:
TheRealMafoo said:
The only way a World War is going to happen, is if the US lost its military might.

Aside from that (and it could be done in a mass scale nuclear attack), there never will be a world war.

The US is so far ahead of any other military. People don't realize how amazingly powerful the US military is. They know it's the best, but it's far better then the second best. (The British)

 

My god... you are so full of you countryes military "powr" that you have absolutly no idea. Its far not as powerfull as they want you to bealive, just that its so overly advertised that people actually bealive it. Shore, you can start the discussion that when they attacked Iraq not one US tank was destroyed and over 500 Iraqi was, but then you just have to look at the facts and see just how big of a BS that is. The Iraqis for instance used 60's Soviet tanks and half of the military perosnel operating it had basicly no training...

 

China is arguably more powerfull heaving far less advanced weapons, but far more brute force and a far better economical sittuation. Than there is Russia whom is sitting on the worlds largest nuclear stockpile, and heaving by far the most raw matterial in the world. Niether of the two makes any "commercials" about their army outside of their state, but when they have an issue they resolve it in a much more brutal, faster and more efficiant way ;)

 

And now about WW3... well unfortunatly the only scenario I could imagine is a nuclear war, and then it would be all over anyways. And yes, if conflicts will continuasly start in the next decade we could arguably call the current sittuation a WW...

ummmm what?

first of all, the US did all that in Iraq without even using a minute fraction of its military power. (ie. no nukes, no carpet bombing) Second, in a conventional war between the US and China, China wouldn't evn have a chance; not even a ghost of a chance. If you think they would, try reading about this little toy, which the US has nine of. (each one of those bad boys has more fighters than all but 20 or so countries' entire air force does) and this, which the US will have ~2500 of by 2020. Third. China's economy is better than the US? wth? Just for a reference here, in just the last 12 years, the US GDP has grown more than the entire size of China's GDP. Think about that for a while...... 

And then we come to the clincher in the current US vs China military power argument: nukes. The US has more than 6000 operational nuclear warheads available and probably at least that (if not more) in storage if they are needed and we have more than enough rockets and planes (and who knows what else) to deliver them. China can barely muster 800 total nukes and it's not likely that more than 500-600 can be delivered to US targets in a reasonable amount of time. (which is enough to cause plenty of damage, but when you look at the devastating and incredibly one-sided response that the US could easily muster, it would completely insane for China to attempt a nuclear strike against the US)

As for Russia, sure they have tons of nukes (12000-18000 by most estimates) but only a tiny fraction (maybe 2000-3000) are "operational" and there's been a lot of question as to whether a significant amount of those would even work. (they have been pretty much completely neglected since the mid-1980s, so who knows what the hell would happen if they fired them up?) I'm not even going to touch on other issues such as Russia's natural resources as other than oil (which the US has enough of to survive for a few months if they have to) the US has far, far more than enough raw materials for military production.

I don't think a lot of people realize how truely collossal the US economy (and by extension, military production capacity) really is. For example, the projected US defense budget for fiscal 2009 is $711000000000 (that's right, 700 billion dollars; larger than all but the top 16 entire nations' economies Edit: it's also five times as much as your home country's GDP) which accounts for between 45 and 55% (depending on the estimate) of worldwide military spending. Despite this, the US's defense budget when measured as a percentage of the GDP doesn't even make the top ten list. Heck, it doesn't even make the top twenty, which means if they have too/feel threatened, the US government has a hell of a lot of breathing room to amp up the military even more than its' already insane levels.

 

Some more pretty awesome US weapons include this and the most expensive fighter. Heck even America's NATO allies have some pretty decent weaponry, such as the Eurofighter (2nd only to the Raptor), Leopard 2 and this -of which none have been destroyed by enemy action! The Russians have little decent equipment and same with China, compared to NATO forces.



Tispower1 on 03 November 2008
SamuelRSmith said:
Talking about who's got the greatest military power. How many people here are from the country that has had the largest empire in the history of man? Anyone?

Oh, just me and Tispower, so far.

 

Haha, there needs to be more games like Empire: Total War, we you can pretty much take over the world, and yet keep it realistic



bouzane on 03 November 2008
SamuelRSmith said:
bouzane said:
A nuclear holocaust followed by a war between the corporatist New World Order and the socialist / communist nations and their allies.

 

What side would Europe be on? Or, dare I say it... the US in a couple of years?

 

The seeds of the New World Order are planted in America. After the cataclysm their reign will start in America and will radiate outward to its capatilist allies including the European nations. A bleak future indeed.



Ted-Nugent on 03 November 2008

I think China vs. The World will be basically what it is

More specifically. The sides will be:

- China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Burma

vs.

- USA, Canada, Germany (finally on the winning side :), France, United Kingdom, etc.


China could do some serious damage but in the end they lose. And they become Democratic after losing. Communism finally erradicated



I am Ted Nugent

Cat Scratch Fever

Around the Network
konnichiwa on 03 November 2008

Jean-Claude Van Damme can take anyone;.






SamuelRSmith on 03 November 2008
Ted-Nugent said:
I think China vs. The World will be basically what it is

More specifically. The sides will be:

- China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Burma

vs.

- USA, Canada, Germany (finally on the winning side :), France, United Kingdom, etc.


China could do some serious damage but in the end they lose. And they become Democratic after losing. Communism finally erradicated

 

 China's not even a true command economy, and you forgot about Cuba...



bouzane on 03 November 2008
Tispower1 said:
Retrasado said:
hunter_alien said:
TheRealMafoo said:
The only way a World War is going to happen, is if the US lost its military might.

Aside from that (and it could be done in a mass scale nuclear attack), there never will be a world war.

The US is so far ahead of any other military. People don't realize how amazingly powerful the US military is. They know it's the best, but it's far better then the second best. (The British)

 

My god... you are so full of you countryes military "powr" that you have absolutly no idea. Its far not as powerfull as they want you to bealive, just that its so overly advertised that people actually bealive it. Shore, you can start the discussion that when they attacked Iraq not one US tank was destroyed and over 500 Iraqi was, but then you just have to look at the facts and see just how big of a BS that is. The Iraqis for instance used 60's Soviet tanks and half of the military perosnel operating it had basicly no training...

 

China is arguably more powerfull heaving far less advanced weapons, but far more brute force and a far better economical sittuation. Than there is Russia whom is sitting on the worlds largest nuclear stockpile, and heaving by far the most raw matterial in the world. Niether of the two makes any "commercials" about their army outside of their state, but when they have an issue they resolve it in a much more brutal, faster and more efficiant way ;)

 

And now about WW3... well unfortunatly the only scenario I could imagine is a nuclear war, and then it would be all over anyways. And yes, if conflicts will continuasly start in the next decade we could arguably call the current sittuation a WW...

ummmm what?

first of all, the US did all that in Iraq without even using a minute fraction of its military power. (ie. no nukes, no carpet bombing) Second, in a conventional war between the US and China, China wouldn't evn have a chance; not even a ghost of a chance. If you think they would, try reading about this little toy, which the US has nine of. (each one of those bad boys has more fighters than all but 20 or so countries' entire air force does) and this, which the US will have ~2500 of by 2020. Third. China's economy is better than the US? wth? Just for a reference here, in just the last 12 years, the US GDP has grown more than the entire size of China's GDP. Think about that for a while......

And then we come to the clincher in the current US vs China military power argument: nukes. The US has more than 6000 operational nuclear warheads available and probably at least that (if not more) in storage if they are needed and we have more than enough rockets and planes (and who knows what else) to deliver them. China can barely muster 800 total nukes and it's not likely that more than 500-600 can be delivered to US targets in a reasonable amount of time. (which is enough to cause plenty of damage, but when you look at the devastating and incredibly one-sided response that the US could easily muster, it would completely insane for China to attempt a nuclear strike against the US)

As for Russia, sure they have tons of nukes (12000-18000 by most estimates) but only a tiny fraction (maybe 2000-3000) are "operational" and there's been a lot of question as to whether a significant amount of those would even work. (they have been pretty much completely neglected since the mid-1980s, so who knows what the hell would happen if they fired them up?) I'm not even going to touch on other issues such as Russia's natural resources as other than oil (which the US has enough of to survive for a few months if they have to) the US has far, far more than enough raw materials for military production.

I don't think a lot of people realize how truely collossal the US economy (and by extension, military production capacity) really is. For example, the projected US defense budget for fiscal 2009 is $711000000000 (that's right, 700 billion dollars; larger than all but the top 16 entire nations' economies Edit: it's also five times as much as your home country's GDP) which accounts for between 45 and 55% (depending on the estimate) of worldwide military spending. Despite this, the US's defense budget when measured as a percentage of the GDP doesn't even make the top ten list. Heck, it doesn't even make the top twenty, which means if they have too/feel threatened, the US government has a hell of a lot of breathing room to amp up the military even more than its' already insane levels.

 

Some more pretty awesome US weapons include this and the most expensive fighter. Heck even America's NATO allies have some pretty decent weaponry, such as the Eurofighter (2nd only to the Raptor), Leopard 2 and this -of which none have been destroyed by enemy action! The Russians have little decent equipment and same with China, compared to NATO forces.

 

Impressive military hardware alone does not win a war. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq drive this point home. Manpower and resolve count for a lot and if nations of 20-30 million people can resist America's military power, than I'd expect a nation of over a billion to have more than a fighting chance.



Tispower1 on 03 November 2008
bouzane said:
Tispower1 said:
Retrasado said:

ummmm what?

first of all, the US did all that in Iraq without even using a minute fraction of its military power. (ie. no nukes, no carpet bombing) Second, in a conventional war between the US and China, China wouldn't evn have a chance; not even a ghost of a chance. If you think they would, try reading about this little toy, which the US has nine of. (each one of those bad boys has more fighters than all but 20 or so countries' entire air force does) and this, which the US will have ~2500 of by 2020. Third. China's economy is better than the US? wth? Just for a reference here, in just the last 12 years, the US GDP has grown more than the entire size of China's GDP. Think about that for a while......

And then we come to the clincher in the current US vs China military power argument: nukes. The US has more than 6000 operational nuclear warheads available and probably at least that (if not more) in storage if they are needed and we have more than enough rockets and planes (and who knows what else) to deliver them. China can barely muster 800 total nukes and it's not likely that more than 500-600 can be delivered to US targets in a reasonable amount of time. (which is enough to cause plenty of damage, but when you look at the devastating and incredibly one-sided response that the US could easily muster, it would completely insane for China to attempt a nuclear strike against the US)

As for Russia, sure they have tons of nukes (12000-18000 by most estimates) but only a tiny fraction (maybe 2000-3000) are "operational" and there's been a lot of question as to whether a significant amount of those would even work. (they have been pretty much completely neglected since the mid-1980s, so who knows what the hell would happen if they fired them up?) I'm not even going to touch on other issues such as Russia's natural resources as other than oil (which the US has enough of to survive for a few months if they have to) the US has far, far more than enough raw materials for military production.

I don't think a lot of people realize how truely collossal the US economy (and by extension, military production capacity) really is. For example, the projected US defense budget for fiscal 2009 is $711000000000 (that's right, 700 billion dollars; larger than all but the top 16 entire nations' economies Edit: it's also five times as much as your home country's GDP) which accounts for between 45 and 55% (depending on the estimate) of worldwide military spending. Despite this, the US's defense budget when measured as a percentage of the GDP doesn't even make the top ten list. Heck, it doesn't even make the top twenty, which means if they have too/feel threatened, the US government has a hell of a lot of breathing room to amp up the military even more than its' already insane levels.

 

Some more pretty awesome US weapons include this and the most expensive fighter. Heck even America's NATO allies have some pretty decent weaponry, such as the Eurofighter (2nd only to the Raptor), Leopard 2 and this -of which none have been destroyed by enemy action! The Russians have little decent equipment and same with China, compared to NATO forces.

 

Impressive military hardware alone does not win a war. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq drive this point home. Manpower and resolve count for a lot and if nations of 20-30 million people can resist America's military power, than I'd expect a nation of over a billion to have more than a fighting chance.

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(WWI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_I)

Also look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_day_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_war

Having the proper equipment and training does make a huge difference. I mean the Russians had 1 rifle for every 5 soldiers in WWI! Also, US and their Allies losses in the Vietnam war were a 5th of those on the other side, and though the difference is less with the Iraq War. However, the reason behind these defeats to inferior equipment is less because of numbers, but more because of people's resolve, and if the people don't support you you're pretty much screwed.

 



konnichiwa on 03 November 2008

You just made just some good point about Russia.  Also when they had less the military power and especially equipment they still have sended the Germans whole the way back to Berlin.  After a war it is not important who lost the most men but who got the best result.   Anyway in a war there are no winners only losers :).