Countries that can destroy America if War breaks loose

danny23 said:
Lol....and?

The Blitz failed,and they failed badly.

You don't even know what they were, don't you, you dimwit simpleton?
Their objective was to bomb Britain into submission and they failed.


It's clear I'm arguing with a moron,even with yankee standards.

Go educate yourself and come back as I won't be dumbing myself down by reading your replies.

Good day sir :)
Click to expand...
You guys got bailed out lol. You would have stood zero chance without U.S.
 
Teppodama said:
Hard to wage a war when bleeding hearts at home apply political pressure hamstring your efforts. Constantly having to reign in the machine of war with the knowledge that we'll eventually have to rebuild everything we destroy and likely get pulled out before we can finish the job doesn't exactly lend itself to effective or efficient warfare.

We've been trying to wage war in the most humane and least destructive way possible. We are our own worst enemy, and ultimately, the only thing that can really stop us once we get rolling.
Click to expand...
I should probably explain the above comment before someone calls me a warhawk baby killer wannabe or something.

What I mean is that when we engage in war we often put so many restrictions on our forces and what we are willing to commit to the fight that it hampers achieving the end goal efficiently or successfully. Political pressures at home often dictate this course so we're already fighting among ourselves while still trying to achieve a successful objective.

We fight the enemy, we fight ourselves and ultimately the one's with the oversight don't have the stomach to truly commit to finishing. We might as well just stay home and let one of the EU with the Middle East on their own. Let the UN deal with N. Korea. Let the UN, EU and NATO deal with keeping Russia in its own yard.

America fights because we're actually good at it, we prepare for it and the rest of the Western World, and some of the Eastern, expect it of us and look to us to do the "dirty" work they expect out of the crazy cowboy Yank policemen. And yet, they revile us for it as well and resent that we have that capability and that they rely on that capacity.
 
We can't beat nobody. We lost to a third world country in Vietnam. Do you really think we stand a chance against a developed first world country?
 
Overpressure said:
America is also good at keeping the peace or trying to be a force for stability.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Imagine our power in the hands of the Soviets, NK or China (tho I think China is the most reasonable of those 3).


That aside, kid gloves off, no pc bullshit, no occupying, no shits given about killing civilians - just straight up 'hey we're on our way, if you don't want to fucking die -don't be there when we get there'


America fucking dummies anyone. China, Russia, Iran (lol at this one, but I digress) anyone.
 
sub_thug said:
1 on 1, the US could take anyone in the world. If the rest of the world worked against us as a unified force, we would be hopelessly destroyed. They would overwhelm us, and while we went down, we would probably turn our nukes loose, sending the planet into a nuclear winter. It would be terrible for everyone involved, and I'm glad that this will not likely happen.
Click to expand...


Nope. Our Air Force and our Navy would immediately knock off the remaining super powers Navy and Air Forces making any attempt at getting to the states almost impossible. After that, all we'd have to do is pick off lower end countries who are lower tech trying to bring the fight to us which wouldn't be so bad.


Right now, realistically -the US could most likely fight the entire world to a standstill. Where we'd suffer ultimately would be supply over a long timeline. But with countries struggling to even get here to disrupt our ability to produce it would force a stalemate eventually.
 
It's insane how much shit the US has military wise. Some people here need to do some research on just how much crap we have.


And that's just the stuff we know about.

<seedat>
 
Canadian TS desperately hoping someone could do it, lol.

Keep hating, eh.
 
none, and it's not close

our navy alone would body every...single...country...on earth. We have the best land forces, and best air forces....

nobody wants none, trust. Ask anyone that has served w/ other nations in Iraq or Afghanistan, even the so called 'elite' militaries are laughable at best.

And most importantly, the other actual top militaries (UK, Australia, Israel) are all strong allies to the US....

so good luck w/ that shit
 
we used to make fun of the Bundeswehr for their laughably outdated equipment and out of shape soldiers on a daily basis. And people think they are legit...

hahahahahaha
 
Stoic1 said:
If push comes to shove no country or countries can match the US. If it comes to survival and not political or economic interests you would not see Vietnam or Iraq. You would see Japan in WW2.

Nobody can match our air or sea power. We don't even need ground forces to get the submission.
Click to expand...
these clowns are confusing modern, Versailles treaty absurd RoE's style of war...

w/ actual total warfare.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume they've never served in ANY capacity in any legit armed force. Not in combat anyway
 
AGGAMEMNON66 said:
Nope. Our Air Force and our Navy would immediately knock off the remaining super powers Navy and Air Forces making any attempt at getting to the states almost impossible. After that, all we'd have to do is pick off lower end countries who are lower tech trying to bring the fight to us which wouldn't be so bad.


Right now, realistically -the US could most likely fight the entire world to a standstill. Where we'd suffer ultimately would be supply over a long timeline. But with countries struggling to even get here to disrupt our ability to produce it would force a stalemate eventually.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm a Special Forces officer working at US Army Special Operations Command. While I certainly don't know everything, I feel very qualified to speak on this topic.

You are discounting the volume of people there are in the world. Think back to our lessons in Korea. Think back to the lessons that the Nazis learned in Stalingrad. There are countless other examples of this as well: You can't discount sheer numbers. Technical superiority is great, and training can make your guys force multipliers. But when wave after wave of shit comes at you, then you are going to feel the pain. That's what made the kamikaze pilots so dangerous in WWII. That's what made vehicle-borne IED's so dangerous in Iraq. That's what made the Chinese so tough to defeat in Korea. Wave after wave of these things keeps coming at you, and you just can't kill them quick enough. Even with nukes, you can't kill them all quickly enough. Eventually, the swarm breaks through. We even saw this was a warm game done in 2002 that was theoretically designed to test us against the Iranians. Even with low tech, the bad guys sent speed boats packed with explosives and suicide helicopters, and in the games, they sank a huge portion of a fleet of warships.

On top of that, you need to think about supply lines. How are we going to get that many supplies to everywhere in the world all the time? It's logistically impossible. We can't project forces to reinforce efforts that quickly either. We also aren't designed to train a competent force that fights literally everyone in the world.

Honestly, this kind of bravado is a position of ignorance. It just can't be done. A reasonable leader should never fight more than one front at a time. You can sometimes get away with two fronts, but damn, that's taxing. Smart strategists don't divide their forces like that.
 
Prex32 said:
really? only in iraq more than 5000 dead soldiers.
Click to expand...
they weren't killed by small arms fire....not sure if serious

go look at the cause of death for the vast majority of deaths in Iraq.....
 
WorldofWarcraft said:
geNlvt2.jpg
Click to expand...

Is this a joke ? We had stupid ROE , areas we werent allowed to go , and actually werent trying to make the place an unlivable wasteland and we killed a whole lot of em....... Thats not a good example of what america is capable of or what america would do backed into a corner.

My country has end of the world powers and the answer is no one could whup us and be around to tell the tale.
 
Lol this shit is hilarious. No one stands a chance against the US.

For example if we decided we wanted to own Australia we could make it happen with relative ease. Within a few days their "military" (lol i know) would be irradiated or bending the knee. Their populace would provide little to no resistance given their lack of gun rights and general cuckish attitude. Plus Australians are mesmerized by America pop culture so they'd probably welcome their unofficial-turned-official overlords.

Too many western cuck countries like Australia rely on American Might for their safety.
 
Last edited:
The US has the most powerful military in the world. End of story.
 
Gutter Chris said:
Is this a joke ? We had stupid ROE , areas we werent allowed to go , and actually werent trying to make the place an unlivable wasteland and we killed a whole lot of em....... Thats not a good example of what america is capable of or what america would do backed into a corner.

My country has end of the world powers and the answer is no one could whup us and be around to tell the tale.
Click to expand...
We always have stupid ROE. It's a legitimate weakness. Other countries have bad technology. We have bad ROE. Both limit effectiveness. If the ROE are bad enough that Vietnam wins, it's legitimate to say that Vietnam had a better military. It's legitimate to say that Iraq's insurgents had a better military. At the end of the day, winning is what matters. They won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,917
Messages
55,455,103
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top