USA vs. the other top militaries

[Amplifier]

No one is worried about the French 😀

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish
But still, they can attack the U.S. from both east and west. That would be hard to defend given the long coasts...

We don't have to speculate about the issue. The USA has a vastly more powerful Navy than we did in World War 2, and we defended those coasts with no trouble in WW2, against countries with total Naval power much closer to our own, than the 9 countries you listed possess.

We pretty much dominated the Atlantic with our navy, which was more powerful than the opposition.

We dominated the Pacific, simulataneously. Yes, our Navy was stronger than Germany's and Japans combined, but the advantage was smaller than the advantage we have now.

It's really hard to comprehend our current Naval power, the rest of the world combined, doesn't amount to 25% of our Naval power, if you exclude Russia's nuclear warheads.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once. 😉

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard 😛 Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

The US doesn't have nearly the amount of troops needed to occupy either one of those.

The US would have to occupy to be able to use it as a buffer, the other 9 would only have to establish a base.

That's crazy. If you can imagin a single base for the combined Armies of China and Russia, the other countries are really irrelevant, it would sure be a big base, and a jiucy target for US Air force, which would dominate the Air. The only threat to US air power in the scenario is Russia, which while strong, has always probably been oeverrated by the US military, to justify expenditures.


The USA would not need to occupy any more than the other 9 would, in fact as I added, all the US really needs to do is defend Canada's and Mexico's coasts from invasion.

Misspoke. Base of operations. And not just one base of operations, but one for each country.

Each country would have its own initial base of opeartions, and off of that they would establish bases as they went along.

And Russia would be the only threat to the USAF? The combined power and skill of the Israeli AF and the RAF (these being second and third to pretty much only the US), plus the sheer size of it as a result of adding in Russia, China, and NK would be extremely formidable, and we could possibly be seen at being disadvantaged in this scenario.

And you want to stretch the Navy even thinner by guarding the coasts of all of Canada and Mexico? Do you realize how big Canada's coasts are?

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
No one is worried about the French 😀

They've already declared they would side with the winner.

 

[IAteYourMother]

make a POLL!!! USA LOSES!!!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once. 😉

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard 😛 Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

The US doesn't have nearly the amount of troops needed to occupy either one of those.

The US would have to occupy to be able to use it as a buffer, the other 9 would only have to establish a base.

That's crazy. If you can imagin a single base for the combined Armies of China and Russia, the other countries are really irrelevant, it would sure be a big base, and a jiucy target for US Air force, which would dominate the Air. The only threat to US air power in the scenario is Russia, which while strong, has always probably been oeverrated by the US military, to justify expenditures.


The USA would not need to occupy any more than the other 9 would, in fact as I added, all the US really needs to do is defend Canada's and Mexico's coasts from invasion.

Misspoke. Base of operations. And not just one base of operations, but one for each country.

Each country would have its own initial base of opeartions, and off of that they would establish bases as they went along.

And Russia would be the only threat to the USAF? The combined power and skill of the Israeli AF and the RAF (these being second and third to pretty much only the US), plus the sheer size of it as a result of adding in Russia, China, and NK would be extremely formidable, and we could possibly be seen at being disadvantaged in this scenario.

And you want to stretch the Navy even thinner by guarding the coasts of all of Canada and Mexico? Do you realize how big Canada's coasts are?

Absolutely. I am confident we are defending them as we speak, in partnership with the respective countries.

Your scenario would not work, in my opinion. The USA is not going to sit around letting those countries establish bases in Canada or Mexico.

And look at a map of Canada and/or mexico, the actual places where an invading force could land, is not that big, and are all very close to the USA border and would be impossible to establish a base in, while under constant attack from the sea, the air, and land.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once. 😉

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard 😛 Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

The US doesn't have nearly the amount of troops needed to occupy either one of those.

The US would have to occupy to be able to use it as a buffer, the other 9 would only have to establish a base.

That's crazy. If you can imagin a single base for the combined Armies of China and Russia, the other countries are really irrelevant, it would sure be a big base, and a jiucy target for US Air force, which would dominate the Air. The only threat to US air power in the scenario is Russia, which while strong, has always probably been oeverrated by the US military, to justify expenditures.


The USA would not need to occupy any more than the other 9 would, in fact as I added, all the US really needs to do is defend Canada's and Mexico's coasts from invasion.

Misspoke. Base of operations. And not just one base of operations, but one for each country.

Each country would have its own initial base of opeartions, and off of that they would establish bases as they went along.

And Russia would be the only threat to the USAF? The combined power and skill of the Israeli AF and the RAF (these being second and third to pretty much only the US), plus the sheer size of it as a result of adding in Russia, China, and NK would be extremely formidable, and we could possibly be seen at being disadvantaged in this scenario.

And you want to stretch the Navy even thinner by guarding the coasts of all of Canada and Mexico? Do you realize how big Canada's coasts are?

Fine, Leave the northern coasts up for canada. Let them come and meet the american public. Armed to the teeth and more than likely pissed the fvck off.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once. 😉

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard 😛 Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

The US doesn't have nearly the amount of troops needed to occupy either one of those.

The US would have to occupy to be able to use it as a buffer, the other 9 would only have to establish a base.

That's crazy. If you can imagin a single base for the combined Armies of China and Russia, the other countries are really irrelevant, it would sure be a big base, and a jiucy target for US Air force, which would dominate the Air. The only threat to US air power in the scenario is Russia, which while strong, has always probably been oeverrated by the US military, to justify expenditures.


The USA would not need to occupy any more than the other 9 would, in fact as I added, all the US really needs to do is defend Canada's and Mexico's coasts from invasion.

Misspoke. Base of operations. And not just one base of operations, but one for each country.

Each country would have its own initial base of opeartions, and off of that they would establish bases as they went along.

And Russia would be the only threat to the USAF? The combined power and skill of the Israeli AF and the RAF (these being second and third to pretty much only the US), plus the sheer size of it as a result of adding in Russia, China, and NK would be extremely formidable, and we could possibly be seen at being disadvantaged in this scenario.

And you want to stretch the Navy even thinner by guarding the coasts of all of Canada and Mexico? Do you realize how big Canada's coasts are?

Fine, Leave the northern coasts up for canada. Let them come and meet the american public. Armed to the teeth and more than likely pissed the fvck off.

If it was just the general public against an invasion force with orders to kill with indiscretion and to utilize "torched earth" advancement, we'd have a LOT of dead US citizens. However, that would not happen as it'd be the actual military confronting an invasion force.

But if the invaders took an approach like we have in Iraq, there is no way there could be a successful occupation on US soil.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom

Absolutely. I am confident we are defending them as we speak, in partnership with the respective countries.

Your scenario would not work, in my opinion. The USA is not going to sit around letting those countries establish bases in Canada or Mexico.

And look at a map of Canada and/or mexico, the actual places where an invading force could land, is not that big, and are all very close to the USA border and would be impossible to establish a base in, while under constant attack from the sea, the air, and land.

Before bringing any # of troops over for the invasion, the other countries would have to establish some sort of SAM defense system, along with artillery. Going through northern Russia, they could use their collective Navy power as escorts to transport supplies to the Canadian north. If they brought over enough supplies into the barren Canadian North, they could theoretically build up a defense that they could more deploy at one of the landing spots in the south for the invasion.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I think I read somewhere that the power of the US military is greater than the next 15 biggest militaries combined.

 

[RbSX]

I hate to say this but you might want to throw Canada in there, small army but very very good spec. forces teams and VERY well trained.

Won many international shooting, arms competitions last year, holds record for longest sniper shot, etc. etc.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once. 😉

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard 😛 Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

In case of invasion there is a clause in the American Constitution and Canadian Constitution to extend America's borders to include the most populated Canadian regions.. AKA Canad becomes a part of the United States in the case of mass invasion.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Absolutely. I am confident we are defending them as we speak, in partnership with the respective countries.

Your scenario would not work, in my opinion. The USA is not going to sit around letting those countries establish bases in Canada or Mexico.

And look at a map of Canada and/or mexico, the actual places where an invading force could land, is not that big, and are all very close to the USA border and would be impossible to establish a base in, while under constant attack from the sea, the air, and land.

Before bringing any # of troops over for the invasion, the other countries would have to establish some sort of SAM defense system, along with artillery. Going through northern Russia, they could use their collective Navy power as escorts to transport supplies to the Canadian north. If they brought over enough supplies into the barren Canadian North, they could theoretically build up a defense that they could more deploy at one of the landing spots in the south for the invasion.

Maybe you don't know this but, Northern Russia and Northern Canada are extremely sparsley populated, for a good reason, it's terribly difficult for human beings to live there. A great deal of Northern Canada is virtually impassible to anything but air travel.

You envision taking several million troops over the North pole ?? They would have an extremely difficult time keeping themselves alive, even if they weren't being attacked.

Even if it was humanly possible, the USA already defends that territory, not as part of a wild theory, but in actual fact; the invaders would not have free reign to operate there, they would be under constant attack.

Any and all ships from these 9 countries, would be sunk before they left their home ports, anyway, but if by some miracle they could get to Northern Canada, they couldn't start an invasion from there.

also, someone mentioned the RAF and Israeli airforces, if either of those countries sent significant portions of their air forces to the invasion force, the USA would immediately establish air superiority over their home countries, and they would be effectively conquered, or kept from any further role in the invasion.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Absolutely. I am confident we are defending them as we speak, in partnership with the respective countries.

Your scenario would not work, in my opinion. The USA is not going to sit around letting those countries establish bases in Canada or Mexico.

And look at a map of Canada and/or mexico, the actual places where an invading force could land, is not that big, and are all very close to the USA border and would be impossible to establish a base in, while under constant attack from the sea, the air, and land.

Before bringing any # of troops over for the invasion, the other countries would have to establish some sort of SAM defense system, along with artillery. Going through northern Russia, they could use their collective Navy power as escorts to transport supplies to the Canadian north. If they brought over enough supplies into the barren Canadian North, they could theoretically build up a defense that they could more deploy at one of the landing spots in the south for the invasion.

Maybe you don't know this but, Northern Russia and Northern Canada are extremely sparsley populated, for a good reason, it's terribly difficult for human beings to live there. A great deal of Northern Canada is virtually impassible to anything but air travel.

You envision taking several million troops over the North pole ?? They would have an extremely difficult time keeping themselves alive, even if they weren't being attacked.

Even if it was humanly possible, the USA already defends that territory, not as part of a wild theory, but in actual fact; the invaders would not have free reign to operate there, they would be under constant attack.

Any and all ships from these 9 countries, would be sunk before they left their home ports, anyway, but if by some miracle they could get to Northern Canada, they couldn't start an invasion from there.

also, someone mentioned the RAF and Israeli airforces, if either of those countries sent significant portions of their air forces to the invasion force, the USA would immediately establish air superiority over their home countries, and they would be effectively conquered, or kept from any further role in the invasion.

Ugh you're totally missing something.

Canadian Northern Command maintains 3 airforce bases up north.

If those 9 other countries got a hold of ONE it would mean trouble.

 

[Jawo]

In terms of the USAF...refer to the F-22/EuroFighter thread here

No doubt that we would have air superiority. But as Iraq has proven...that can mean little. With all of the mountain ranges it would be rahter hard for any country to succssfully invade and conquor the US

 

[Tom]

"Ugh you're totally missing something.

Canadian Northern Command maintains 3 airforce bases up north.

If those 9 other countries got a hold of ONE it would mean trouble. "

______________________________________________________________

I'm not missing it, there's no scenario where the nine countries could concentrate sufficient power to overwhelm the Canadian and/or US forces that would oppose them.

They could only destroy the bases, not capture one. A destroyed base does them no good.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Absolutely. I am confident we are defending them as we speak, in partnership with the respective countries.

Your scenario would not work, in my opinion. The USA is not going to sit around letting those countries establish bases in Canada or Mexico.

And look at a map of Canada and/or mexico, the actual places where an invading force could land, is not that big, and are all very close to the USA border and would be impossible to establish a base in, while under constant attack from the sea, the air, and land.

Before bringing any # of troops over for the invasion, the other countries would have to establish some sort of SAM defense system, along with artillery. Going through northern Russia, they could use their collective Navy power as escorts to transport supplies to the Canadian north. If they brought over enough supplies into the barren Canadian North, they could theoretically build up a defense that they could more deploy at one of the landing spots in the south for the invasion.

Maybe you don't know this but, Northern Russia and Northern Canada are extremely sparsley populated, for a good reason, it's terribly difficult for human beings to live there. A great deal of Northern Canada is virtually impassible to anything but air travel.

You envision taking several million troops over the North pole ?? They would have an extremely difficult time keeping themselves alive, even if they weren't being attacked.

Even if it was humanly possible, the USA already defends that territory, not as part of a wild theory, but in actual fact; the invaders would not have free reign to operate there, they would be under constant attack.

Any and all ships from these 9 countries, would be sunk before they left their home ports, anyway, but if by some miracle they could get to Northern Canada, they couldn't start an invasion from there.

also, someone mentioned the RAF and Israeli airforces, if either of those countries sent significant portions of their air forces to the invasion force, the USA would immediately establish air superiority over their home countries, and they would be effectively conquered, or kept from any further role in the invasion.

Reread my post. I never said that there would be millions coming through Northern Canada. I said a small initial force would have to come over to try to transport via land some sort of defense systems that could be used to help protect an invasion in the South.

And the current defense is not nearly enough to cover the area completely.

Depending on how it played out, the US could be pretty much isolated to the seas and US soil. The other countries, before even thinking of deploying troops elsewhere, would attack places that pose the greatet threat to their soil.

So bombing any and all military bases in the Middle East and Asia, and by the UK would become a top priority.

After that, the planes would be restricted to launching from the US and Aircraft carriers, or remote bases. Planes do not have limitless fuel. England would be the most vulnerable in this scenario, but Israel would be free to a good chunk of it's AF to help the other countries.

If the RAF and Israeli AF sent significant forces over, they

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Jawo
In terms of the USAF...refer to the F-22/EuroFighter thread here

No doubt that we would have air superiority. But as Iraq has proven...that can mean little. With all of the mountain ranges it would be rahter hard for any country to succssfully invade and conquor the US

what does Iraq prove?

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once. 😉

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard 😛 Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

In case of invasion there is a clause in the American Constitution and Canadian Constitution to extend America's borders to include the most populated Canadian regions.. AKA Canad becomes a part of the United States in the case of mass invasion.

umm, seriously?

 

[Tom]

"Planes do not have limitless fuel."


Do you know where the planes that bombed Iraq are based ? Mainland USA. If Israel's air force was not defending Israel, we would have free reign to wipe out their production capability, they could not afford to take that risk.

The whole scenario is fanciful in the extreme. The only country in the list of 9 with any experience of invasion by sea, the only realistic way to move large armies, is Britain. And they relied heavily on the USA for logistical support for their part of the Normandy invasion.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Tom
"Planes do not have limitless fuel."


Do you know where the planes that bombed Iraq are based ? Mainland USA. If Israel's air force was not defending Israel, we would have free reign to wipe out their production capability, they could not afford to take that risk.

The whole scenario is fanciful in the extreme. The only country in the list of 9 with any experience of invasion by sea, the only realistic way to move large armies, is Britain. And they relied heavily on the USA for logistical support for their part of the Normandy invasion.

why do people bring up WWII?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom
"Planes do not have limitless fuel."


Do you know where the planes that bombed Iraq are based ? Mainland USA. If Israel's air force was not defending Israel, we would have free reign to wipe out their production capability, they could not afford to take that risk.

The whole scenario is fanciful in the extreme. The only country in the list of 9 with any experience of invasion by sea, the only realistic way to move large armies, is Britain. And they relied heavily on the USA for logistical support for their part of the Normandy invasion.

And how long are they going to be able to stay in the air for over the UK and Israel, having to make trips to and from the US mainland each time they need to refuel?

You'd need to have to utilize many planes in order to keep the patrol at a level that would establish domination over England or Israel. When the US loses it's bases in other countries, it takes a serious blow to its Airforce being used abroad.

Not to mention, the foreign countries would most likely try to cripple the US' fuel supply, by destroying the Alaskan pipeline and hitting strategic South American countries.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
"Planes do not have limitless fuel."


Do you know where the planes that bombed Iraq are based ? Mainland USA. If Israel's air force was not defending Israel, we would have free reign to wipe out their production capability, they could not afford to take that risk.

The whole scenario is fanciful in the extreme. The only country in the list of 9 with any experience of invasion by sea, the only realistic way to move large armies, is Britain. And they relied heavily on the USA for logistical support for their part of the Normandy invasion.

And how long are they going to be able to stay in the air for over the UK and Israel, having to make trips to and from the US mainland each time they need to refuel?

You'd need to have to utilize many planes in order to keep the patrol at a level that would establish domination over England or Israel. When the US loses it's bases in other countries, it takes a serious blow to its Airforce being used abroad.

US has air bases in Saudi Arabia and Germany I think, which would allow it to bomb Israel and the UK.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
"Planes do not have limitless fuel."


Do you know where the planes that bombed Iraq are based ? Mainland USA. If Israel's air force was not defending Israel, we would have free reign to wipe out their production capability, they could not afford to take that risk.

The whole scenario is fanciful in the extreme. The only country in the list of 9 with any experience of invasion by sea, the only realistic way to move large armies, is Britain. And they relied heavily on the USA for logistical support for their part of the Normandy invasion.

And how long are they going to be able to stay in the air for over the UK and Israel, having to make trips to and from the US mainland each time they need to refuel?

You'd need to have to utilize many planes in order to keep the patrol at a level that would establish domination over England or Israel. When the US loses it's bases in other countries, it takes a serious blow to its Airforce being used abroad.

US has air bases in Saudi Arabia and Germany I think, which would allow it to bomb Israel and the UK.

He cut out the part where I said one of the first things the 9 countries would do, would be destroy any an all bases the US has in foreign countries.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
"Planes do not have limitless fuel."


Do you know where the planes that bombed Iraq are based ? Mainland USA. If Israel's air force was not defending Israel, we would have free reign to wipe out their production capability, they could not afford to take that risk.

The whole scenario is fanciful in the extreme. The only country in the list of 9 with any experience of invasion by sea, the only realistic way to move large armies, is Britain. And they relied heavily on the USA for logistical support for their part of the Normandy invasion.

And how long are they going to be able to stay in the air for over the UK and Israel, having to make trips to and from the US mainland each time they need to refuel?

You'd need to have to utilize many planes in order to keep the patrol at a level that would establish domination over England or Israel. When the US loses it's bases in other countries, it takes a serious blow to its Airforce being used abroad.

US has air bases in Saudi Arabia and Germany I think, which would allow it to bomb Israel and the UK.

He cut out the part where I said one of the first things the 9 countries would do, would to destroy any an all bases the US has in foreign countries.

Without consent they would intrude in a foreign country's airspace?? Potentially drawing in those respective countries into war as well? I suppose then things might be even more escalated...