World War 3 - Ignored

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
598
126
Actively attacked

Chechnya
Russia
Spain
Iraq
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Thailand
Singapore
Bali
Greece
The United States
Nigeria
Sudan


Threatened

Japan
Italy
France
England
UN Leadership
Poland

We are in a world right now that has not seen such levels of violence since World War 2.

Feel free to add to this list.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Most people are just scared and too weak to do anything.
these are the same people who wanted to stay neutral during WW2 and let europe get raped.
and unfortunately terrorists are currently winning IMO.

Personally i think we should set up strike forces with other countries and start assassinating terrorist/ leaders. Making deals with terrorists isn't an option. Terrorism is quickly expanding worldwide.
We survived WW2& Communism we can survive this too.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
598
126
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Who is the us and them?

Its really becoming a situation of no longer us and them.

It is working itself into everyone vs everyone.
 

d3n

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2004
1,597
0
0
Our country would be doubly clouded by doubt and fear if our troops were not out projecting the principles of this country into an area of the world that is very oppressive. Terrorist and militants are reacting there instead of acting here, despite all the politizied debates that this war is prompting. It is a war on terror and a war on oppression and a war on fundamental elements with unchecked hatered torwards this country. Fundamental change is happening.. it may not be on the strait and narrow and it for sure isn't easy to stomach sometimes. This country has to follow through or it will continue.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Was roaming the net and found this site

This is the world's opinion on who they would attack in a war.

Btw, the creators are not advocating war but just an interest thing.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
598
126
Originally posted by: Stunt
Was roaming the net and found this site

This is the world's opinion on who they would attack in a war.

Btw, the creators are not advocating war but just an interest thing.

In a real standup fight and not a bughunt, the US is the last country anyone should think of attacking...just my opinion
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Not a great situation to analyze but i think if it was the US vs the world, the world would win hands down.
A good 10 nations have nuclear know how, the chinese have the largest standing army. Plus the US is a very resource dependent country. The US could raise a lot of havoc initially but in the end 300million vs. 6.5 billion people. I choose the world.

Besides...the US can't even take over iraq, you think they could take on 191 other countries?

And if you are going to bring up the nukes, im sure the rest of the world has just as many, and that would just end in the destruction of the world...including the US...which is hardly "winning"
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,818
6,778
126
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Stunt
Was roaming the net and found this site

This is the world's opinion on who they would attack in a war.

Btw, the creators are not advocating war but just an interest thing.

In a real standup fight and not a bughunt, the US is the last country anyone should think of attacking...just my opinion

The exact reason we are so dangerous... the inability to self reflect.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
598
126
Originally posted by: Stunt
Not a great situation to analyze but i think if it was the US vs the world, the world would win hands down.
A good 10 nations have nuclear know how, the chinese have the largest standing army. Plus the US is a very resource dependent country. The US could raise a lot of havoc initially but in the end 300million vs. 6.5 billion people. I choose the world.

Besides...the US can't even take over iraq, you think they could take on 191 other countries?

And if you are going to bring up the nukes, im sure the rest of the world has just as many, and that would just end in the destruction of the world...including the US...which is hardly "winning"

Bring in a full scale nuclear attack and everyone loses.

But remember they have to:

A. Reach American Soil
B. Work

Most of the worlds supply of nukes would either not reach the US or would fail. Many of the nukes the Soviets had were fakes.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
If canada/cuba/central and south america were in on it...it could easily reach US soil.
Also North Korea and russia can both reach US soil with their weapons.

Latest Russian technology renders ur missile defense useless.

Just give north korea the world's supply of spent rods and look out...haha
thats the only reason they can't mass produce, because their only nuclear plant can only put out enough for one warhead every 8 months or something.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
If canada/cuba/central and south america were in on it...it could easily reach US soil.
Also North Korea and russia can both reach US soil with their weapons.

Latest Russian technology renders ur missile defense useless.

Just give north korea the world's supply of spent rods and look out...haha
thats the only reason they can't mass produce, because their only nuclear plant can only put out enough for one warhead every 8 months or something.
I always love these threads when they turn into a U.S. v The World discussion.....never fails to make me laugh.

Ok...if it were to come down to the U.S. v everyone else in a non nuclear war the only real threat would be China. Unless China decided to take it nuclear even they couldn't touch the U.S. All the U.S. would need to do is a park a couple of carrier groups off the coast of China and wipe out the Chinese military from there. China has no navy to speak of and would not be able to get their troops over here without going across Russia and trying to come in through Alaska. If they were foolish enough to try that it would result in not much more than the U.S. pilots going to a turkey shoot.

As for Canada/Cuba/Central America, etc, etc....attacking and reaching U.S. soil. Good luck with that. They might reach the U.S., but they wouldn't stay here for long. For starters the Canadians don't have as large a military as some of the U.S. states have in National Guardsmen. And the poor suckers coming up from the South would run into the most heavily armed part of the U.S. I pity anyone who tries to attack the belly of the U.S. and come up from the South.

About North Korea reaching U.S. soil with their nukes....unless something has changed I don't believe that to be the case. They may, may be able to hit Hawaii with one, but I think everyone remembers what happened the last time someone attacked Hawaii......
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
And the option of china/russia sending troops by air over the north pole to canada and fight at the 49th.
Canada may have a piss poor military but we have great positioning and excellent relations with europe, middle east, russia and japan.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
And the option of china/russia sending troops by air over the north pole to canada and fight at the 49th.
Canada may have a piss poor military but we have great positioning and excellent relations with europe, middle east, russia and japan.
Neither of those countries have enough heavy airlift capability to get enough people onto U.S. soil at one time to matter much. Even if they somehow made it through the U.S. fighters scrambled to take them out it would still be a slaughter for them on the ground.
 

AcidicFury

Golden Member
May 7, 2004
1,508
0
0
Not to mention the European powers, but considering that Britain and France are still just as powerful as Russia. They both have nuclear capability, and there would be no way that the US could outperform both the EU and China at the same time. The US would lose after about a year. We wouldn't be able to call up as many troops as the rest of the world.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Not to mention the European powers, but considering that Britain and France are still just as powerful as Russia. They both have nuclear capability, and there would be no way that the US could outperform both the EU and China at the same time. The US would lose after about a year. We wouldn't be able to call up as many troops as the rest of the world.

We would need to call up as many troops as the rest of the world.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I am reminded of when the USSR and the US were locked in global conflict. So many had the idea we would win an open war.

How? We kill 3/4 their population and we only lose 2/3s


No one is openly going to oppose the US. There are other ways that we can be effectively harmed, and far more seriously than has ever happened before. I don't think it best to mention possibilities in a public forum, but it does not take a genius to figure out some of the simpler ones. All it takes is money and the will.
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I am reminded of when the USSR and the US were locked in global conflict. So many had the idea we would win an open war.

How? We kill 3/4 their population and we only lose 2/3s


No one is openly going to oppose the US. There are other ways that we can be effectively harmed, and far more seriously than has ever happened before. I don't think it best to mention possibilities in a public forum, but it does not take a genius to figure out some of the simpler ones. All it takes is money and the will.

Often the geniuses miss the simple assymetrical methods, such as kamikazie hijackings. Like our fixation on missiles, when it is easier to bring a nuke into a harbor in a crate.

Zephyr
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Was roaming the net and found this site

This is the world's opinion on who they would attack in a war.

Btw, the creators are not advocating war but just an interest thing.

That poll is hilarious. France is #1!

Canada is #4? Why?
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Zephys 106,

Well put!!. It's not hard to imagine the United States as easy overdog in a face to face versus most anyone, but the United States is so prepared for the big things, the smaller things a-la 9/11, sneak by and cause real havoc.

The extremists are at war, and most nations haven't shown up to their own war yet. It's almost comical id it wasn't so serious.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,354
1,863
126
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Actively attacked

Chechnya
Russia
Spain
Iraq
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Thailand
Singapore
Bali
Greece
The United States
Nigeria
Sudan


Threatened

Japan
Italy
France
England
UN Leadership
Poland

We are in a world right now that has not seen such levels of violence since World War 2.

Feel free to add to this list.



To add to the countries attacked:
Israel ... they are under constant attack



also, if it was the US vs the rest of the world, I think we would lose, but our kill ratios would be very very impressive.