The greatest nation on earth

[whougonnacall]

A. I never said the entire world; I said the entire civilized world. And yes, conventional war matters a shit ton here.

B. This also counts because we won't get tied up trying to subdue and occupy - wasting valuable manpower and resource.

-It is only speculated what Russia has as much as they do, and many beleive their numbers are exagerrated. Add the fact that many beleive the US lies and downplays exactly how much it actually has.. and you see where I am going with this.



This is a completely ridiculous statement. The fact alone that we have bases all over the world that could toss them over near by borders is enough. Not to mention Submarines capapble of lauching off coasts and our gi-fucking-gantic air force that has the capability of delivering a payload anywhere we'd like to drop it off.



Sure, there are other countries that have advanced systems, but it is a fact that the US is easily leading the world in damn near every war related technological arena, including this one.

Not to mention, almost every nation I am speaking of would have to somehow get across the Atlantic or Pacific to deliver, while we would'nt have to work as hard to acomplish such a feat.


Let all that sink in.

-entire civililised world? europe, china, russia , india etc combined ...really sink in how fucking stupid going up against that combined sounds

-so you want me to overestimate u.s numbers and underestimate russian ones? ....ok
that matters to the amount of fuck all with this discussion both sides could wipe the world out hundreds of times over . Then of course we have to also consider the arsenals of other nations .....so again we come back to the original point of
it would HAVE to be a no nukes scenario

the bases are on soil you would be fighting ie blasted or occupied as soon as hostilities start to escalate (in this bizzare sceanrio of the u.s taking on the world)
and many other countries have the same submarine deployment cababilities
and the air force thing? europe alone has comparable combined air force before you start to add all the others in there

what part of missle defence not working even remotely well enough to be a factor confused you?

Thats an issue for both sides to contend with if

 

[whougonnacall]

America vs the world with everybody trying to invade us would be about as fair as one country vs everybody ever. We have a tactile advantage, ocean to ocean laying cover to desert and open lands, mountain ranges, forests, ect. Our people are armed, our military is budgeted big time, and we have years upon years of battle tactics for every situation, most of which is many steps ahead of everything else in use by everyone else. Top of the line militaries not called the US...are using our old shit. There's a reason! Good luck trying to mess with Mexico to get at us. Canada, as much as they hate to admit it, would not screw us over, and we'd reinforce them so you couldn't set up shop on the continent. It would be a throw down! You essentially would be taking on North America.

again we are talking about fantasy scenarios here so we could be just as vaild talking about dwarve and elf brigade numbers but if we are going to stick to the loose rules of this odd little dreamworld ........then surely canada and mexico count as 'the world ' or 'the civilised world' ?
If we start to get bogged down with 'but x or y country wouldnt be agaisnt us ' it sorta defeats the point of thinking about the u.s vs the world no?

 

[Yompton]

again we are talking about fantasy scenarios here so we could be just as vaild talking about dwarve and elf brigade numbers but if we are going to stick to the loose rules of this odd little dreamworld ........then surely canada and mexico count as 'the world ' or 'the civilised world' ?
If we start to get bogged down with 'but x or y country wouldnt be agaisnt us ' it sorta defeats the point of thinking about the u.s vs the world no?

My scenario is as bogged down as you can make it realistically...just saying. Also, not to be an ass, but to look at it realistically, we could lock down Canada in a second. We'd isolate a section between Alaska and mainland US and Canadians would probably have a chuck of continent divided among backing us or telling us to fuck off(betting they would back us). You can't throw politics, tactics, and strategies out of the window and assume Canada and Mexico would just line shit up at us and already give them that advantage. It would never happen, ever. This is the part of America many don't get...the Americas hold their own shit down, regardless of everybody else. South makes Africa look like refreshing afternoons on the beach, Mexico and Central America make the Middle East look peaceful. Those places will rob you blind, they're hardcore people. They dont care about everyone else. Good luck trying to come up with a scenario where you set up shop over here. Thing is, we have lots of shop set up over there...LOTS! If I'm ignoring that then saying you'd be locked in an engagement with North America is as fair as it can be. Mexicans are a big part of the U.S., do you really think they're gonna let you take out their cash cow up north? Yeah, you'd need to be worth their pocketbooks to make that happen, which better be worth more then he systems the cartels and government already have established...not to mention the tons of family members mexicans have here. Mexico and Canada are neutral U.S., you cant use them, they're with us before the rest of the world.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Did you even read that link?

"Powerful forces in United States Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were the Republican Senators William Edgar Borah, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Gerald P. Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr.,[1] but support of non-interventionism was not limited to the Republican party. The Ludlow Amendment, requiring a public referendum before any declaration of war except in cases of defense against direct attack, was introduced several times without success between 1935 and 1940 by Democratic Representative Louis Ludlow.

Democratic President Roosevelt and especially his Secretary of State Cordell Hull were critical of the Neutrality Acts, fearing that they would restrict the administration's options to support the country's allies."

FDR was a massive warmonger from the start. Fortunately he had so much opposition within the American public that our entry into the war was delayed until the optimum time. Good timing, yep.

Ok so 99.9% of the US favored the neutrality acts and FDR secretly opposed them.

Yet they were pushed through and the US was isolationist. Im not sure what you guys are arguing at this point?

 

[whougonnacall]

My scenario is as bogged down as you can make it realistically...just saying.

yeah but the whole thing falls apart the more realistic it becomes anyway

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

-entire civililised world? europe, china, russia , india etc combined ...really sink in how fucking stupid going up against that combined sounds

I never once came to the conclusion that this would be a great idea, its fucking hypothetical.

And yeah, I thought about each and everyone of those countries. And they would lose their asses to us.

-so you want me to overestimate u.s numbers and underestimate russian ones? ....ok

No, I want you to consider the fact that their are no actual nailed down numbers as to who has what and how much of it they have. I don't give a fuck what you actually beleive, I beleive that the Nation with the largest Navy -with tonnage equaling out to the next top-10 Navy's in the world combined, and the largest Airforce in the world also has the largest stockpile of Nukes, even tho we always point the finger at the Soviets for this.

that matters to the amount of fuck all with this discussion both sides could wipe the world out hundreds of times over . Then of course we have to also consider the arsenals of other nations .....so again we come back to the original point of
it would HAVE to be a no nukes scenario

I am not talking about nukes as a war scenario at this point, I was correcting your correction.

the bases are on soil you would be fighting ie blasted or occupied as soon as hostilities start to escalate (in this bizzare sceanrio of the u.s taking on the world)

Like fucking hell. That would be really hard to do when we're targeting the fuck out of them from distances they wouldn't be able to react to quickly enough. For fucksakes we have planes that can detect and knock other planes out of the sky before the enemy even know they're in a fight.

and many other countries have the same submarine deployment cababilities

lol

No 'many' do not. There are only a few that could:

http://realitypod.com/2010/08/top-10-deadliest-submarines/5/

and the air force thing? europe alone has comparable combined air force before you start to add all the others in there

You are completely misinformed here:

#1 The United States

Ruler of the technology horizon along with conceptions apparently picked from the futuristic script of a Hollywood flick, the USAF was founded on September 11, 1947, with the motto No One Comes Close. The undisputed magnet of air, space and cyberspace in the current scenario, this air force owns the largest number of warplanes in the world which almost equals to the rest of the world put together.

http://topyaps.com/top-10-strongest-air-forces-of-the-world/

what part of missle defence not working even remotely well enough to be a factor confused you?

Most likely the part where I have to rely soley on some random Sherdog users word about it on a chat forum. Other than that, yeah, sounds legit

 

[Navi16**]

I don't like to hate on countries, no country is the greatest on earth each country is great in their own rights

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Ok so 99.9% of the US favored the neutrality acts and FDR secretly opposed them.

Yet they were pushed through and the US was isolationist. Im not sure what you guys are arguing at this point?

He didn't secretly oppose them, its just that there is only so much he could do. He found other ways to help the Brits.. like sending supplies to them. Which you still haven't responded to.

 

[whougonnacall]

1)I never once came to the conclusion that this would be a great idea, its fucking hypothetical.
And yeah, I thought about each and everyone of those countries. And they would lose their asses to us.


2)No, I want you to consider the fact that their are no actual nailed down numbers as to who has what and how much of it they have. I don't give a fuck what you actually beleive, I beleive that the Nation with the largest Navy -with tonnage equaling out to the next top-10 Navy's in the world combined, and the largest Airforce in the world also has the largest stockpile of Nukes, even tho we always point the finger at the Soviets for this.
I am not talking about nukes as a war scenario at this point, I was correcting your correction.




3)Like fucking hell. That would be really hard to do when we;re targeting the fuck out of them from distances they wouldn't be able to react to. quickly enough. For fucksakes we have planes that can detect and knock other planes out of the sky before the enemy eve know they're in a fight.




4)lol

No 'many' do not. Their are only a few that could:

http://realitypod.com/2010/08/top-10-deadliest-submarines/5/





5)You are completely misinformed here:



6) Most likely the part where I have to rely soley on some random Sherdog users word about it on a chat forum. Other than that, yeah, sounds legit.

1) You are backtracking now ....you originaly said vs the rest of the world, then the civilised world now its one at a time .......why not just admit it was a daft thing to say?

2) more nukes, less nukes ..again irelevent as both sides can turn the other to glass many times over
3) might want to read it all back ........you are gonna target your own bases now?
4) the U.S is one of 6 countires with subs that can do this ...feel free to google it
5)Pretty big airforce but not not a bigger than the rest of the worlds combined

6) again feel free to use google . israels iron dome has by far and away the best sucess rate at 95% but thats just against home made rockets and even those numbers are massively disputed.

 

[whougonnacall]

My scenario is as bogged down as you can make it realistically...just saying. Also, not to be an ass, but to look at it realistically, we could lock down Canada in a second. We'd isolate a section between Alaska and mainland US and Canadians would probably have a chuck of continent divided among backing us or telling us to fuck off(betting they would back us). You can't throw politics, tactics, and strategies out of the window and assume Canada and Mexico would just line shit up at us and already give them that advantage. It would never happen, ever. This is the part of America many don't get...the Americas hold their own shit down, regardless of everybody else. South makes Africa look like refreshing afternoons on the beach, Mexico and Central America make the Middle East look peaceful. Those places will rob you blind, they're hardcore people. They dont care about everyone else. Good luck trying to come up with a scenario where you set up shop over here. Thing is, we have lots of shop set up over there...LOTS! If I'm ignoring that then saying you'd be locked in an engagement with North America is as fair as it can be. Mexicans are a big part of the U.S., do you really think they're gonna let you take out their cash cow up north? Yeah, you'd need to be worth their pocketbooks to make that happen, which better be worth more then he systems the cartels and government already have established...not to mention the tons of family members mexicans have here. Mexico and Canada are neutral U.S., you cant use them, they're with us before the rest of the world.

again most of what you said could be applied to this entire fantasy scenario
its either u.s vs entire world or we could start breaking down why each set of nations wouldnt attack each other ........which would be defeating the entire point of talking about it surely?
and logistics alone might make locking down canada a little harder than you describe
Huge ass country, lots of bottlenecks due to terrain, modern military and tech and armed populace etc ...might not be the cakewalk you'd think

 

[Yompton]

1) You are backtracking now ....you original said vs the rest of the world, then the civilised world now its one at a time .......why not just admit it was a daft thing to say?

2) more nukes, less nukes ..again irelevent as both sides can turn the other to glass many times over
3) might want to read it all back ........you are gonna target your own bases now?
4) the U.S is one of 6 countires with subs that can do this ...feel free to google it
5)Pretty big airforce but not not a bigger than the rest of the worlds combined

6) again feel free to use google . israels iron dome has by far and away the best sucess rate at 95% but thats just against home made rockets and even those numbers are massively disputed.

We are far more technically sounds then the rest of the world as far as weapons go. Our jets, subs, tanks, carriers, everything! Out old shit we sell is the number two in terms of the best equipment on the battlefield. We have all the little things that everyone wishes they had. ADA could tear entire Air Force squadrons to ribbons in seconds. Our AF alone could destroy just about anything it wants to, minus subs. We have everything! Everybody else has some of this stuff, we have all of that stuff combined...but the upgraded best of the best versions, with full options available in all of your favorite colors...such as OD green! Raytheon and Lockheed Martin!

 

[Yompton]

again most of what you said could be applied to this entire fantasy scenario
its either u.s vs entire world or we could start breaking down why each set of nations wouldnt attack each other ........which would be defeating the entire point of talking about it surely?
and logistics alone might make locking down canada a little harder than you describe
Huge ass country, lots of bottlenecks due to terrain, modern military and tech and armed populace etc ...might not be the cakewalk you'd think

I'm familiar with Canadian military first hand and have done FTXs against their special forces, I'm well aware of their capabilities...cake walk.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

1) You are backtracking now ....you originaly said vs the rest of the world, then the civilised world now its one at a time .......why not just admit it was a daft thing to say?

You took this long to respond and only came back with a handful of posts telling me to 'use google' after I posted actual links to back alot of what I have said about numbers?

Get the fuck out of here. Yeah, I'll admit a hypothetical comment based off of hyperbole was daft, as soon as you go outside for some fresh air. Take a deep breath.

you originaly said vs the rest of the world, then the civilised world now its one at a time

Jesus fucking Christmas, are you fucking serious?

Its scary to think that the US could literally declare war on the entire civilized world and have the power to possibly pull it off. Its almost comical when you take a look at how large our Airforce and navy are.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=77461457

Yeah, thats you needing to get your shit together. I didn't even have to go back more than a few pages to find that -not that I haven't remembered exactly what I have said. And while we're on exactly what i said, where in the fuck do you see me saying anything about 1 at a time? Feel free to highlight that shit.

2) more nukes, less nukes ..again irelevent as both sides can turn the other to glass many times over

Yeah thats right, keep bringing it up. There is nothing else to say about this. I know your opinion on it and you know mine, but we can't grab accurate numbers to justify either so its all speculation.

3) might want to read it all back ........you are gonna target your own bases now?

Yeah, and you might want to learn how to read in general. Where, in the fuck, do I say we'll be targeting our own bases genius?

4) the U.S is one of 6 countires with subs that can do this ...feel free to google it

Yeah, and that means 5 others are remotely capable of it while not possesing the same Navy or Airforce capacity to back it up that we do -and still, none of that equals out to 'many' as you so casually claimed.

I haven't even brought American bombers into this discussion -yeah, guess how that discussion ends

5)Pretty big airforce but not not a bigger than the rest of the worlds combined

I provided a link to back my statement up. Provide a link to back yours or keep trying to get me to take your word for it. We have more fighters in our airforce than the other largest airforces combined, thats a fucking fact -you know, the shit you have yet to include in your posts.

6) again feel free to use google . israels iron dome has by far and away the best sucess rate at 95% but thats just against home made rockets and even those numbers are massively disputed.

Fuck google. I didn't enter into this discussion not knowing what the fuck I was talking about in the 1st place, that would be you. I have since provided links to back some of the numbers up here -and now you're reduced to taking 30 minutes to reply and only coming up with 2 minutes worth of thought with no facts. Great work.

Walk it off.

 

[whougonnacall]

We are far more technically sounds then the rest of the world as far as weapons go. Our jets, subs, tanks, carriers, everything! Out old shit we sell is the number two in terms of the best equipment on the battlefield. We have all the little things that everyone wishes they had. ADA could tear entire Air Force squadrons to ribbons in seconds. Our AF alone could destroy just about anything it wants to, minus subs. We have everything! Everybody else has some of this stuff, we have all of that stuff combined...but the upgraded best of the best versions, with full options available in all of your favorite colors...such as OD green! Raytheon and Lockheed Martin!

lol
I know you're being sarcastic here but il bet there are yanks everywhere who would believe this

 

[Yompton]

I want to play some risk now!

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

lol
I know you're being sarcastic here but il bet there are yanks everywhere who would believe this

And I'll bet that there are ignorant 3rd worlders that don't realise just how true it is.

 

[Yompton]

lol
I know you're being sarcastic here but il bet there are yanks everywhere who would believe this

I've seen the rest of the world in action chief. There's a different level between us and the rest of the world. First hand experience on my end. I've been alongside British special forces, Netherlands ect...seen the equipment and soldiers. Same with Korea and Japan, Middle East. There's a huge gap...not even close. Huge gap between the level of soldiers as well. Tactics, training, and discipline. Honestly, British SFs were about as close to what I consider actually military discipline here. Props to them. Our army and marines are tough tactical sons of bitches, and that's before special forces, extra training, ect. I was in a defensive unit and we ripped foreign special forces to pieces, no matter who we went up against. Better marksmen, better equipment, better tactics, tough as hell. Our own infantries were another story.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I've seen the rest of the world in action chief. There's a different level between us and the rest of the world. First hand experience on my end. I've been alongside British special forces, Netherlands ect...seen the equipment and soldiers. Same with Korea and Japan, Middle East. There's a huge gap...not even close. Huge gap between the level of soldiers as well. Tactics, training, and discipline. Honestly, British SFs were about as close to what I consider actually military discipline here. Props to them. Our army and marines are tough tactical sons of bitches, and that's before special forces, extra training, ect. I was in a defensive unit and we ripped foreign special forces to pieces, no matter who we went up against. Better marksmen, better equipment, better tactics, tough as hell. Our own infantries were another story.

This brings me to another point countering all the shit dude is saying about other countries having some machines with similar capabilities. Can their operators perform at the highest levels? Because we all sure as fuck know that the US operators/pilots and so forth can. All that equipment is useless in the worng hands.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

This brings me to another point countering all the shit dude is saying about other countries having some machines with similar capabilities. Can their operators perform at the highest levels? Because we all sure as fuck know that the US operators/pilots and so forth can. All that equipment is useless in the worng hands.

^The M1-A1 Abrams in the Gulf War comes to mind real quick here. The Iraqis had the Russian T tanks that were supposed to be every bit as formadable as the Abrams.. and we wiped them the fuck out while sustaining almost no casualties at all.

And they had more than double the forces lol

A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, and two were purposely destroyed to prevent capture after being damaged


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Gulf_War.2C_1991

 

[Yompton]

^The M1-A1 Abrams in the Gulf War comes to mind real quick here. The Iraqis had the Russian T tanks that were supposed to be every bit as formadable as the Abrams.. and we wiped them the fuck out while sustaining almost no casualties at all.

And they had more than double the forces lol

Lol, Abrams operator was going to be my original mos, I changed it before I went in. Those tank are no joke, is everybody across the pond familiar with what a sabo round does to another tank?...or in your case a slower, less agile, less technological excuse for a tank?