Page 1 of 4
If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:56 am
by Squirt
If there was to be a whole world war what country [continent] would you say would win?why?
This is me history essay my teacher is making us write over weekend that dick -.-
Anyway give me your answers i need help on this
i said russia because they have alot of nukes?
I dont know about other contries help=/
( not america)
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:58 am
by Stallowned
Why would it not be ths US? It's pretty obvious it would be the US...
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:01 am
by Sharp324
I doubt it would be Russia really, allies would push them back. If they tried to move on Europe we would be there, this scenario reminds me of End War (New Tom Clancy game coming)
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:21 am
by Pilot
"I do not know what world war three will be fought with, but I know world war four will be fought with sticks and stones" ---Albert Einstein
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:21 am
by l05tfr33k7
Sharp324 wrote:I doubt it would be Russia really, allies would push them back. If they tried to move on Europe we would be there, this scenario reminds me of End War (New Tom Clancy game coming)
ya that game looks awesome.
Edit: Pilot are u serious with that quote? Did he actually say that?
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:27 am
by darkmaster21
Why no America?
Because were the super power I suppose
I guess it would be Canada and UK (Combined forces, no way none of them could solo another country)
Or Russia as 2nd
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:30 am
by StealMySoda
l05tfr33k7 wrote:Sharp324 wrote:I doubt it would be Russia really, allies would push them back. If they tried to move on Europe we would be there, this scenario reminds me of End War (New Tom Clancy game coming)
ya that game looks awesome.
Edit: Pilot are u serious with that quote? Did he actually say that?
http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/9871
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:33 am
by Reise
The way America is going we would probably end up using the war to make tons of money by shipping out supplies and equipment to whoever we're allied with by then.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:36 am
by Xyzzzy
Reise wrote:The way America is going we would probably end up using the war to make tons of money by shipping out supplies and equipment to whoever we're allied with by then.
Like WWII, but if I remember correctly we lost a shit load of cash with our war production.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:39 am
by Morgoth
i wouldnt really say a single country would win, it would be based on alliances so whoever is allied with the United States will win due to their massive amount of military power and influence
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:41 am
by fena
Xyzzzy wrote:Reise wrote:The way America is going we would probably end up using the war to make tons of money by shipping out supplies and equipment to whoever we're allied with by then.
Like WWII, but if I remember correctly we lost a shit load of cash with our war production.
And became a world superpower by doing so.
For the United States, economically, WWI had good benefits. America was going through the Great Depression at the time period and the war actually revitalized the economy, mostly through the production of materials like tanks and weapons and other military supplies. Unemployment rates dropped like flies.
All at the cost of millions of lives, of course...
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:44 am
by StealMySoda
Is this assuming everybody just doesn't nuke each other, killing EVERYBODY?
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:48 am
by Casey613
Korea.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:52 am
by Xyzzzy
fena wrote:Xyzzzy wrote:Reise wrote:The way America is going we would probably end up using the war to make tons of money by shipping out supplies and equipment to whoever we're allied with by then.
Like WWII, but if I remember correctly we lost a shit load of cash with our war production.
And became a world superpower by doing so.
For the United States, economically, WWI had good benefits. America was going through the Great Depression at the time period and the war actually revitalized the economy, mostly through the production of materials like tanks and weapons and other military supplies. Unemployment rates dropped like flies.
All at the cost of millions of lives, of course...
We were coming out of the Great Depression. We still had 4 million unemployed at the time, and 7 million living in poverty. Although it did wonders for our economy we lost tons and tons of money on the Cost-Plus program.
Instead of asking for bids, the government signed Cost-Plus contracts. The government agreed to pay whatever it cost to produce the product, plus a guaranteed percentage of the costs as a profit. Under this program the more and faster a company produced products, the more money it would make. This system was not cheep but did however get war materials produced quickly and in quantity.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:53 am
by l05tfr33k7
fena wrote:Xyzzzy wrote:Reise wrote:The way America is going we would probably end up using the war to make tons of money by shipping out supplies and equipment to whoever we're allied with by then.
Like WWII, but if I remember correctly we lost a shit load of cash with our war production.
And became a world superpower by doing so.
For the United States, economically, WWI had good benefits. America was going through the Great Depression at the time period and the war actually revitalized the economy, mostly through the production of materials like tanks and weapons and other military supplies. Unemployment rates dropped like flies.
All at the cost of millions of lives, of course...
exactly. was just bout to say that WWII already involved US supplying war supplies and equipment to the European nations, even Germany when US was neutral. But all the profit goes down the drain with inflation and recession.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:54 am
by SaoKill
US with its allies>world
If no one had allies, everyone man for themself, still USA
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:56 am
by Xyzzzy
SaoKill wrote:US with its allies>world
If no one had allies, everyone man for themself, still USA
I disagree, in a state like that it may come down to sheer man power, and I'd imagine china would quickly over power us on that front.
Of course we have enough nukes to make a china sized crater -.-
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:57 am
by Stallowned
Xyzzzy wrote:SaoKill wrote:US with its allies>world
If no one had allies, everyone man for themself, still USA
I disagree, in a state like that it may come down to sheer man power, and I'd imagine china would quickly over power us on that front.
Of course we have enough nukes to make a china sized crater -.-
Human numbers don't mean too much in modern warfar.
China is only a threat to its immediate neighbors. Everyone else can chillax or fck with themf rom a distance.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:02 am
by Xyzzzy
Stallowned wrote:Xyzzzy wrote:SaoKill wrote:US with its allies>world
If no one had allies, everyone man for themself, still USA
I disagree, in a state like that it may come down to sheer man power, and I'd imagine china would quickly over power us on that front.
Of course we have enough nukes to make a china sized crater -.-
Human numbers don't mean too much in modern warfar.
China is only a threat to its immediate neighbors. Everyone else can chillax or fck with themf rom a distance.
But if we ever wanted to take China on one on one, we would be overrun. In WWII with invading Japan we learned how hard it is to invade another country with hundreds of thousands of losses for single battles. Battles like Iwo Jima, and the philipenes.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:05 am
by Stallowned
Xyzzzy wrote:But if we ever wanted to take China on one on one, we would be overrun. In WWII with invading Japan we learned how hard it is to invade another country with hundreds of thousands of losses for single battles. Battles like Iwo Jima, and the philipenes.
We didn't have all the fancy weaponry, aircraft, etc we have now back theen.
These days you can conventially blow away a whole damned town without anyoone even knowing you're anywhere near, or without even actually being anywhere near.
WHy do people always assume we are just goign to dive in and send 50000 men against millions with the kind of tech we have today? Of course men will be sent in to secure territory once the main defences are down, but sh1t isn't like no ww2 anymore.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:06 am
by Morgoth
fena wrote:For the United States, economically, WWI had good benefits. America was going through the Great Depression at the time period and the war actually revitalized the economy, mostly through the production of materials like tanks and weapons and other military supplies. Unemployment rates dropped like flies.
All at the cost of millions of lives, of course...
ummm.. the great depression happened over 10 years after WWI
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:07 am
by Reise
Numbers are irrelevant in modern warfare I think. It's not gonna help you when we can kick your ass before you even cross the ocean.
Also, don't forget we still have dudes in South Korea to fight on their side of the pond. So I doubt China would even think of trying to invade by land. And also, angry Cali residents with guns would stop that crap dead in its tracks.
You think the middle east has bad insurgents, wait till you try to invade the US. It would be like Red Dawn x500000.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:08 am
by SaoKill
Yeah, America only borders Canada, and most countries are landlocked/close to landlocked, making them screwed on most sides
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:10 am
by Rainigul
Why is everyone saying US? They would win if they were allied with (which is very probable), but in a total solo battle, like no official allies, then US would be the first big country to go. Every other country would realize that they have very powerful military abilities, and would take them out as quick as possible.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:11 am
by Xyzzzy
Stallowned wrote:Xyzzzy wrote:But if we ever wanted to take China on one on one, we would be overrun. In WWII with invading Japan we learned how hard it is to invade another country with hundreds of thousands of losses for single battles. Battles like Iwo Jima, and the philipenes.
We didn't have all the fancy weaponry, aircraft, etc we have now back theen.
These days you can conventially blow away a whole damned town without anyoone even knowing you're anywhere near, or without even actually being anywhere near.
WHy do people always assume we are just goign to dive in and send 50000 men against millions with the kind of tech we have today? Of course men will be sent in to secure territory once the main defences are down, but sh1t isn't like no ww2 anymore.
Point taken -.-
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:11 am
by Stallowned
[SD]Rainigul wrote:Why is everyone saying US? They would win if they were allied with (which is very probable), but in a total solo battle, like no official allies, then US would be the first big country to go. Every other country would realize that they have very powerful military abilities, and would take them out as quick as possible.
No other country has the projection power of making it anywhere near the US.
sad fact most people don't seem to realize.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 am
by Rainigul
Stallowned wrote:[SD]Rainigul wrote:Why is everyone saying US? They would win if they were allied with (which is very probable), but in a total solo battle, like no official allies, then US would be the first big country to go. Every other country would realize that they have very powerful military abilities, and would take them out as quick as possible.
No other country has the projection power of making it anywhere near the US.
sad fact most people don't seem to realize.
What do you have to back this up? I'm assuming that WWIII will not come out from nowhere and just appear one day, so other countries will have gotten ready for it. The US is in great debt, they're ready for war right now, but if other countries had time to get ready, then the US wouldn't be at such an advantage.
If it did come very suddenly, then US would have a huge advantage, and win if countries allied with them (which is very likely)
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:19 am
by Stallowned
[SD]Rainigul wrote:Stallowned wrote:[SD]Rainigul wrote:Why is everyone saying US? They would win if they were allied with (which is very probable), but in a total solo battle, like no official allies, then US would be the first big country to go. Every other country would realize that they have very powerful military abilities, and would take them out as quick as possible.
No other country has the projection power of making it anywhere near the US.
sad fact most people don't seem to realize.
What do you have to back this up? I'm assuming that WWIII will not come out from nowhere and just appear one day, so other countries will have gotten ready for it. The US is in great debt, they're ready for war right now, but if other countries had time to get ready, then the US wouldn't be at such an advantage.
If it did come very suddenly, then US would have a huge advantage, and win if countries allied with them (which is very likely)
And why would the US just sit back and watch the rest of the world build up their military and not do a single thing about it?
Even if they did. US still has by far the most advanced military technology.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:21 am
by Rainigul
Stallowned wrote:And why would the US just sit back and watch the rest of the world build up their military and not do a single thing about it?
Even if they did. US still has by far the most advanced military technology.
Ever heard of the Cold war? You can't just randomly attack a country with nukes, if you do, then the rest of the entire world will destroy you.
Yeah, they have the best military technology now, but like I said, if other countries invested their time in military affairs, they'd be ahead, or at least at par with the US.
Re: If there was to be
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:22 am
by Reise
lol You'd think people would realize by now the US basically can pull money out of its ass to fund wars. You know that thing we're having issues with, that thing called inflation? That's a direct effect of our deficit spending. Thing is, we can do it until our money becomes as valuable as dirt, but we will still be able to fund wars.
Also, though it may not seem like it, should a serious WW3 happen I'm sure we would have plenty of allies right off the bat. But I really doubt anything that huge will ever happen.