World War III, who would win?

[waggy]

Originally posted by: steveeast112
Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.

talking nukes changes everything. sure we dont have as many as those countries combined. but do you really think that makes a diffrence?

the fallout from over 20,000 of them going off would be devestating. not to mention the US nukes while smaller are more powerfull.

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Skoorb
EU and Russia. They have more people, and unlike some pissant nation, they have capabilities and education, as well as resources to build weapons.

How much of a fight is Canada going to put up?

There was a time when Canada's military wasn't a joke. Canada has 30 million people - over half of that of Britain - and great natural resources, as well as an educated populous. If they needed to retool for war they could in a while. Still though, the US & Canada is no match for EU and Russia.

I'm kinda sick of people always putting down on Canada's armed forces as a whole. Our armour divisions might not be the best (our tank rocks ) but you can't beat the infantry and artillery skills. I'm talking per capita here. I know the US has us outnumbered 10:1, but who'd you call when you needed snipers for the Afghanistan/Iraq conflict? That's right. Canada.

- M4H

And it smells better than Jersey.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chraticn
And it smells better than Jersey.

man NOTHING can compare to jersey. i just drove though it once and it nearly killed me.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Chraticn
And it smells better than Jersey.

man NOTHING can compare to jersey. i just drove though it once and it nearly killed me.

Paper Mills of Alabama might be a close second.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: steveeast112
Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.

Just how does the EU and Russia plan to move that oil with no ships? The Russan navy is a mere shadow of its former self. The EU nations combined fleets could not protect their tankers and survive engagements with U.S. surface and submarine forces.

Within six months hundreds of ships in storage could be recalled to sea duty.

The U.S. would end up controlling the world's oceans. Game over.

 

[ajpa123]

So, if this war was begun in the beginning of the winter.. and somehow this war got underway..

By chance, the terrorists that exist on American soil take revenge for the whole Iraq bombing by taking out our power grids, Wall Street and a bunch of Monuments.. wouldn't that throw this country into a state of confusion and really make things interesting!

I know that I am throwing something far-fetched out there.. but just imagine what kind of utter chaos that would ensue... boggles my mind anyways.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: steveeast112
Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.

Just how does the EU and Russia plan to move that oil with no ships? The Russan navy is a mere shadow of its former self. The EU nations combined fleets could not protect their tankers and survive engagements with U.S. surface and submarine forces.

Within six months hundreds of ships in storage could be recalled to sea duty.

The U.S. would end up controlling the world's oceans. Game over.

You're wrong to think that all oil reserves are in the sea, majority - yes, but not all. Also - I think the Caspian Sea (I'm not sure I spelled this one right) has no ocean links, so it'll be pretty tricky for any military US vessel to enter there.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: steveeast112
Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.

I thought we weren't supposed to bring WMD into this discussion. But regardless, 11,000 nukes is enough to cripple the entire world (including the nuker)

 

[SagaLore]

Who says anybody would win...

 

[Rage187]

U.S wins with a self-defense preemptive nuclear strike.


Canada is shortly taken over by the U.S. and stripped mined or all its oil and trees.


The Canucks lose all their free medical and help sub the cost of ours.

France is quickly over taken by the nation of Isarael without a fight. The french are then sold to the US as slaves. They are put into concentration camps and forced to make wine and have their women shave. We also subject them to the infamous "Wear deoterant" torture.

We hire the the mideast terrorists as consultants and wage a large scale retaliation strike on whatever is left of EU minus France. The terrorists are paid with large amounts of guns.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: steveeast112
Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.

Just how does the EU and Russia plan to move that oil with no ships? The Russan navy is a mere shadow of its former self. The EU nations combined fleets could not protect their tankers and survive engagements with U.S. surface and submarine forces.

Within six months hundreds of ships in storage could be recalled to sea duty.

The U.S. would end up controlling the world's oceans. Game over.

You're wrong to think that all oil reserves are in the sea, majority - yes, but not all. Also - I think the Caspian Sea (I'm not sure I spelled this one right) has no ocean links, so it'll be pretty tricky for any military US vessel to enter there.

I never said that all oil was undersea.

Tankers are needed to transport the oil. With all the EU and Russian controlled tankers vacationing on the seafloor it might be a touch harder to move oil out of most of the middle east.

Combine that with strikes on pipeline terminals in Turkey, and they are screwed.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: Rage187
U.S wins with a self-defense preemptive nuclear strike.


Canada is shortly taken over by the U.S. and stripped mined or all its oil and trees.


The Canucks lose all their free medical and help sub the cost of ours.

France is quickly over taken by the nation of Isarael without a fight. The french are then sold to the US as slaves. They are put into concentration camps and forced to make wine and have their women shave. We also subject them to the infamous "Wear deoterant" torture.

We hire the the mideast terrorists as consultants and wage a large scale retaliation strike on whatever is left of EU minus France. The terrorists are paid with large amounts of guns.

haha, you're funny.

 

[ajpa123]

Originally posted by: Rage187
U.S wins with a self-defense preemptive nuclear strike.


Canada is shortly taken over by the U.S. and stripped mined or all its oil and trees.


The Canucks lose all their free medical and help sub the cost of ours.

France is quickly over taken by the nation of Isarael without a fight. The french are then sold to the US as slaves. They are put into concentration camps and forced to make wine and have their women shave. We also subject them to the infamous "Wear deoterant" torture.

We hire the the mideast terrorists as consultants and wage a large scale retaliation strike on whatever is left of EU minus France. The terrorists are paid with large amounts of guns.

I'm gonna get flamed just like the other flash thread.. but i gotta say it.... 'you're freakin hilarious..'

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: steveeast112
Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.

Just how does the EU and Russia plan to move that oil with no ships? The Russan navy is a mere shadow of its former self. The EU nations combined fleets could not protect their tankers and survive engagements with U.S. surface and submarine forces.

Within six months hundreds of ships in storage could be recalled to sea duty.

The U.S. would end up controlling the world's oceans. Game over.

You're wrong to think that all oil reserves are in the sea, majority - yes, but not all. Also - I think the Caspian Sea (I'm not sure I spelled this one right) has no ocean links, so it'll be pretty tricky for any military US vessel to enter there.

I never said that all oil was undersea.

Tankers are needed to transport the oil. With all the EU and Russian controlled tankers vacationing on the seafloor it might be a touch harder to move oil out of most of the middle east.

Combine that with strikes on pipeline terminals in Turkey, and they are screwed.

ah okay, you mentioned the pipelines

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

I don't agree.

The US still considers Russia a major threat and you can see that for yourself if you follow its foreign miliratry politics. Currently the US is building bases all around Russia, and most of those have been created after the end of the Cold war. Those include bases negotiated through political means - say Bulgaria (where I live), as well as bases taken by agression - Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. And please spare the fighting for freedom argument for those last three. PERHAPS you had a reason to invade Afghanistan, but I can assure that practically everyone outside the US kinda doubted that one. But attacking Yugoslavia and Iraq, just because the US was not comfortable with their leaders and claiming it 'war against terror' is pure bullhsit.

Didn't say we didn't consider them a major threat...however I don't think they are our in our top worries right now, I just said we wouldn't go sending out first attack at them and ask questions later.

Russia may have been a busted nation after the Cold war (mainly because of internal traitors and nation-wide robbers), but it has been on a rise in the last few years.

I don't even know how to acknowledge that....the country has tons and tons of problems.

And thinking that the US doesn't have powerful nuclear warheads is naive. Maybe they're not parading them, but you can be sure there are such missiles and they are launch-ready. It's just not nice from political perspective for the freedom loving american population to think their leaders have the means to kill the entire world population.

Also - it's North Korea, not Communist Korea

Are you correcting just to correct? THE US DOESN'T HAVE PLANET KILLERS LIKE OTHER COUNTRIES. That is what I said...we have a few powerful ones, yes, but that is not the philosophy of our nuke program...yes I am sure there could be a Hail Mary nuke. I think you really don't understand what's going on, and just like to bash the US.

I am aware that's it's North Korea. Having a wife directly from Japan, I hear about it almost weekly.

Å

 

[Rage187]

If you dont think the U.S. already has a plan to take over the whole world, your lying to yourself.


Since the first world war we have been working on a plan to one day unite the world in one utopia.

If you dont believe me, look around.



/conspiracy theory off

 

[NickelTitanium]

anytime war is bought on to your own soil, it is bad news. the innocent citizens suffer. ultimately, we will knock them back. rebuilding takes time. the u.s. is lucky in the sense that their has not been any "foreign" invaders.

that being said, in this day and age, we should be worried about an economic war...

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

I don't agree.

The US still considers Russia a major threat and you can see that for yourself if you follow its foreign miliratry politics. Currently the US is building bases all around Russia, and most of those have been created after the end of the Cold war. Those include bases negotiated through political means - say Bulgaria (where I live), as well as bases taken by agression - Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. And please spare the fighting for freedom argument for those last three. PERHAPS you had a reason to invade Afghanistan, but I can assure that practically everyone outside the US kinda doubted that one. But attacking Yugoslavia and Iraq, just because the US was not comfortable with their leaders and claiming it 'war against terror' is pure bullhsit.

Didn't say we didn't consider them a major threat...however I don't think they are our in our top worries right now, I just said we wouldn't go sending out first attack at them and ask questions later.

Russia may have been a busted nation after the Cold war (mainly because of internal traitors and nation-wide robbers), but it has been on a rise in the last few years.

I don't even know how to acknowledge that....the country has tons and tons of problems.

And thinking that the US doesn't have powerful nuclear warheads is naive. Maybe they're not parading them, but you can be sure there are such missiles and they are launch-ready. It's just not nice from political perspective for the freedom loving american population to think their leaders have the means to kill the entire world population.

Also - it's North Korea, not Communist Korea

Are you correcting just to correct? THE US DOESN'T HAVE PLANET KILLERS LIKE OTHER COUNTRIES. That is what I said...we have a few powerful ones, yes, but that is not the philosophy of our nuke program...yes I am sure there could be a Hail Mary nuke. I think you really don't understand what's going on, and just like to bash the US.

I am aware that's it's North Korea. Having a wife directly from Japan, I hear about it almost weekly.

Å

Philosophy of your nuke program.. are you military? A general who knows all the insides? If you are - then I apologize. If you're not - then all you're saying is just an impression of what your government wants you to know.

I don't see any US bashing in my comments - I'm stating rational observations from an unbiased non-US perspective. I understand that all the media information people in the US get is filtered, americanized to make the US seem patriotic and freedom-loving and at times just plain untrue, so in this respect I see why my comments concerning political matters are often disliked, labeled as untrue or ignored altogether. There may be US government bashing in my comments, and you should know it (the gov) deserves it. The US in general - I have no reason to bash that - I quite like the US. I read US sites and magazines regularly. I work for a US based company. I wouldn't say no to a green card either.

About Korea - so if you know it's North and not Communist, why not refer it with its proper name?

 

[MystikMango]

Speaking of China, I read a report last year (can't find it online now) that stated due to the sheer size of China, they could support a ground war by supplying 10million people of fighting age (15-35) every year for 10 years. In contrast, America could only provide 1.2 million people of fighting age.

At that rate, China could win any ground war with simple sticks and rocks. Any force against them probably couldn't make weapons and ammunition fast enough to deal with the numbers of Chinese troops.

Back to the make believe war of Canada/US against an invading force of EU/Russians, I don't think the invading force would make it out of Canada, even if they managed to land force in Alaska to begin with.

Besides, have we forgotten what happened to the last "make believe force" that invaded the US?

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: NickelTitanium
anytime war is bought on to your own soil, it is bad news. the innocent citizens suffer. ultimately, we will knock them back. rebuilding takes time. the u.s. is lucky in the sense that their has not been any "foreign" invaders.

that being said, in this day and age, we should be worried about an economic war...

Mexico was for a while. In the war of 1812 the british did some damage on US soil too.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: Rage187
If you dont think the U.S. already has a plan to take over the whole world, your lying to yourself.

Since the first world war we have been working on a plan to one day unite the world in one utopia.

If you dont believe me, look around.

/conspiracy theory off

Cool joke. Explain then what is the US military doing in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq? Why do they need military bases all around the world including the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Cuba + the three above (and I'm sure many others)?

 

[alphatarget1]

what oil? you'd be foolish to believe that it's possible to drill oil AND refine it at the same time in a time of war. a couple of missiles will take out the oil supply for both sides.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: yllus


North America = un-invadable.

Care to make a wager on that? I guess we'll find out in a few years/months

Aren't you the numbskull who was going to go to Japan with $2000 dollars in your pocket in a few months and be an interpreter without knowing the language?

Yeah, your opinion amounts to about a pile of bird seed...that's been recycled.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: NickelTitanium
anytime war is bought on to your own soil, it is bad news. the innocent citizens suffer. ultimately, we will knock them back. rebuilding takes time. the u.s. is lucky in the sense that their has not been any "foreign" invaders.

that being said, in this day and age, we should be worried about an economic war...

Mexico was for a while. In the war of 1812 the british did some damage on US soil too.

Okay, well I'm sure he meant recent foreign invaders.

 

[JackDawkins]

No question at all that given the original scenario, the US would destroy any invading force. The US would control the air and the sea and make it impossible for resupply, which any invading force would require massive amounts of. The invasion would stall in its tracks, get cut off, then wither and die from intense US bombardment. Now, would the US then counter-attack and invade Russia and Europe? Only if they were foolish but they might get a few properties ceded to them by wars end.

But the whole scenario is impossible anyway because the US would not sit idly by while an invasion force assembled. There is no such thing as a "surprise invasion" on this scale and the invasion force would never even hit land.