Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

dylsupreme1 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:28 pm

When it comes to military training, America is the best in the world. Not to mention having the most powerful navy and air force in the world and the most aircraft carriers. Oh and even though it's pretty bad right now, the greatest worldwide economy. They are a true superpower. It also helps that Canada is right up north to them. I'm just going to throw this out there, if war did happen and the USA was to be invaded in any way, the opposing army would have to deal with the Air force, the coast guard and A little help from Canada. If they got through that somehow they would have to oppose 90 million americans that own guns and have the right to use them plus hundreds of thousands of US and Canadian troops.

^^^^ just wanted to point it out

OmegaXII · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:38 pm

im sure if they got passed all that they can kill civilians who have no military training and no tanks or body armor and if they had no oil then there would be no air force or navy

dylsupreme1 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:52 pm

I did some research and I was wrong. more than 200 million people own guns. China's whole military has only 1,250,000 soldiers so it doesn't matter if civilians don't have any military training or body armor. Your not going to win anything when your outnumbered 200 to 1. Also like i said, China has the most amount of troops at 1,250,000 however, there is no possible way they could manage to send any more than a couple thousand soldiers all the way here. I doubt they could move 100 troops anywhere without being detected much less a couple thousand. It would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers backed with air support to get past the air force and navy anyway.... I'm sorry but your argument is invalid.

OmegaXII · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:02 pm

but consider the fact that they will recruit more and more and there army will be probably more then 5million+. and still 200million civilians there little pistols and shotguns wont even be in range of all these M16's and M4's and M21 rifles. not to mention the fact they will bomb the living daylights out of the US

MmCm6 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:15 pm

OmegaXII wrote:

but consider the fact that they will recruit more and more and there army will be probably more then 5million+.

There's still that little problem of sending them all off halfway across the world with little detection. They'll probably have problems with that from the sheer numbers they're planning to send out, and even with reduced numbers, do you really think the US is just gonna let them land unscathed?

and still 200million civilians there little pistols and shotguns wont even be in range of all these M16's and M4's and M21 rifles.

Asymmetrical warfare. The best kind there is.

not to mention the fact they will bomb the living daylights out of the US

Fear of counter-strikes and defensive mechanisms will most likely stay those missiles. The only delivery system I think would be effective are submarines and planes; don't you think they'll have counter-measures for that type of scenario? If the makers of CoD can think of it, then a high-level Defense think tank will have as well. (Not a CoD fan, just pointing that out there)

Anyways, why is it about all the major powers? A war will most likely be started by a rogue state vs. a major power trying to defend the peace. The major power's allies will come to its side, and all the states who hate the major powers will line up in their own way against them, probably without formally allying together, thiking this is there chance to strike a blow. I imagine it will be very one-sided and localized to areas where fighting will break out. And all though some major powers do not necessarily agree with the US on some issues, they will line up to defend the relative peace, as well as their own assets.

OmegaXII · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:20 pm

MmCm6 wrote:

Anyways, why is it about all the major powers? A war will most likely be started by a rogue state vs. a major power trying to defend the peace. The major power's allies will come to its side, and all the states who hate the major powers will line up in their own way against them, probably without formally allying together. I imagine it will be very one-sided and localized.

hes got a point WW1 was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of austria i think it was

mfreak · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:21 pm

The world dynamics has changed guys. Anyways if you wanna list countries in order of military strength then here we go. And this is the real list. The Top ten.

1. USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. India
5. UK
6. Turkey
7. South Korea
8. France
9. Japan
10. Israel

This however does not mean, that the US can attack Israel (for example) and beat them. They will get their asses handed to them.

Now wars hereafter, will not be between countries. It will be between cultures and civilizations. Which is what we are seeing today. Wars are fought for political and economic gain. Nothing else. All of these top 10 countries are incredibly strong. Both militarily and economically. Any of these countries picking a fight with each other will end up bankrupt and devastated.

As for the US having better training than others, or better equipment than others, that is NOT true. Not false either, but dont buy into Discovery channel Future weapons propaganda. There are lots of countries like Israel, India, China, Russia, South Africa, Japan, Brazil, Sweden, France, EU etc that produce world class equipment and provide world class training. For example US marines frequently train in India, for Jungle and mountain warfare, in which the Indian forces excel. If Russian nukes are 50 years old, so is the american nuclear arsenal. Most of those missiles are duds. They probably only operate tactical nukes these days and not the Mega Ton bombs that they used to test during the cold war, mostly as a show of strength.

Lastly, Russian nukes will work. Even if they dont, lemme ask you this. Does a nuke ACTUALLY have to work to cause damage? lol. Remember the Castle bravo test by the US? Where the calculations went wrong, and there was lot of fallout and the yield was many times more than calculated etc?

MmCm6 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:22 pm

OmegaXII wrote:

hes got a point WW1 was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of austria i think it was

There was more to that; the assassination was just the spark needed to get the fire going, so to speak.

Anyways, I found this quote to be relevant, although its origins are somewhat obscure:

Quote:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

MmCm6 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:30 pm

mfreak wrote:

Now wars hereafter, will not be between countries. It will be between cultures and civilizations. Which is what we are seeing today. Wars are fought for political and economic gain. Nothing else. All of these top 10 countries are incredibly strong. Both militarily and economically. Any of these countries picking a fight with each other will end up bankrupt and devastated.

Exactly the reason why global war is unlikely. These countries will have interests to protect, and will do what they can to keep things going peacefully.

As for the US having better training than others, or better equipment than others, that is NOT true. Not false either, but dont buy into Discovery channel Future weapons propaganda. There are lots of countries like Israel, India, China, Russia, South Africa, Japan, Brazil, Sweden, France, EU etc that produce world class equipment. If Russian nukes are 50 years old, so is the american nuclear arsenal. Most of those missiles are duds. They probably only operate tactical nukes these days and not the Mega Ton bombs that they used to test during the cold war, mostly as a show of strength.

Mutually Assured Destruction. Even with a smaller payload, the risk is too great for them to consider bringing these out in a war. And when global war is unlikely, then the odds of seeing a mushroom cloud at any point is unlikely as well, unless on the off-chance a rogue state launches an effective missile just for the helluvit.

Lastly, Russian nukes will work. Even if they dont, lemme ask you this. Does a nuke ACTUALLY have to work to cause damage? lol. Remember the Castle bravo test by the US? Where the calculations went wrong, and there was lot of fallout and the yield was many times more than calculated etc?

Well, yes they would cause damage, but unless the propulsion systems are working properly, the damage will be on the country's land rather than the enemy's.

EDIT: Sorry for the double-post.

dylsupreme1 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:34 pm

There is another quote relevant to this conversation.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. ~Albert Einstein

World War 3