Taylor !SwiftF91Vc
08/12/12(Sun)09:25
No.4791645

Taylor !SwiftF91Vc 08/12/12(Sun)09:25 No.4791645

>>4791627
I doubt it.

The US will be fighting a civil war and a war overseas.


remember Detroit

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:26
No.4791664

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:26 No.4791664

>he thinks the US has a chance
Remember that your economy is built on foreign debt. When they decide that they're faulty debts, your economy dies.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:27
No.4791687

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:27 No.4791687

>>4791645
>Civil war
Yeah no that's fucking stupid.
>>4791664
We'll just steal China's money to pay off our debt!

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:28
No.4791705

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:28 No.4791705

>We'll just steal China's money to pay off our debt!
>pay off debt
>with other people's money

See, this is why you guys have a deficit.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:29
No.4791712

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:29 No.4791712

>>4791627
China is going to buttfuck the US while Russia will fuck Europe's brains out. Don't be overconfident, you guys are nothing but a pile of shit to other country's

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:29
No.4791713

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:29 No.4791713

File: 1344778166454.jpg-(21 KB, 590x461, 20120104-holdsthedebt.jpg)

>>4791664
>Built on foreign debt
Yeah. Sure.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:29
No.4791716

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:29 No.4791716

>>4791687
>people going at each others throat just because the president is black
>"lol no civil war evar!!!"

yeah, no. you americans hate each other, admit it already.
blacks vs everyone
mexicans vs everyone
whites vs everyone and themselves

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:30
No.4791730

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:30 No.4791730

>>4791664

That goes the other way too. The countries the US are in debt to depend just as much on the US as the US depends on them. It's a Mexican standoff and there will be no WW3 until that changes.

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:30
No.4791732

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:30 No.4791732

>>4791713
>government debt
Have you seen the national debt yet?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:30
No.4791740

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:30 No.4791740

>>4791705
You do know china owns less than 3 trillion of our debt, and you do know what our debt is in, right?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:31
No.4791747

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:31 No.4791747

>>4791713
that's misleading. it makes you believe that americans are holding said debt.

this is only after 4 years by now of the treasury doing voodoo economics and buying its own debt.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:31
No.4791748

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:31 No.4791748

>>4791627
>americlap navy transporting gold bullion to china

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:31
No.4791751

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:31 No.4791751

>>4791705
I'm sure they have enough cash to pay it off. I don't see the problem.
>>4791712
China has to go through Worst Korea, Japan, and Taiwan before they can touch us. Plus our Navy would rape theirs at 30% strength.
>>4791740
It's Debt to the American people.

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:32
No.4791759

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:32 No.4791759

>>4791730
Very few countries have a debt level as high as the US's.

Remember, as soon as those debts are deemed worthless, the loaned money means nothing. The value of the dollar will go down drastically.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:33
No.4791782

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:33 No.4791782

>>4791712
America's navy can defeat the next 15 largest navies with ease, i think it can even defeat more.
Our military and air force are the most advanced in the world. Go cry to mommy and ask for another doctors visit because you have a severe case of butthurt.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:33
No.4791785

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:33 No.4791785

>>4791732
You do realize those are the same things right?
Anyways, It's not like China/Other Countries/Whoever Holds the debt can just immediately call on the US to pay their debt. You guys seriously need to understand how bonds work.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:35
No.4791810

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:35 No.4791810

>>4791759
American dollar won't collapse anytime soon, The euro will collapse before then, and that will raise the dollar. Everything will be fine for us.

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:35
No.4791811

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:35 No.4791811

>>4791785
The Government debt is the debt held by the government. The National debt is the debt held by both the Government and the public. They're two very, very, different things.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:36
No.4791836

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:36 No.4791836

File: 1344778588808.jpg-(67 KB, 400x400, 1271405139820.jpg)

>it's 2025
>all baby boomers have retired
>pension, social security and medicare payments for the boomers now 14 times the tax income
>cheap processed HFC foods have lead to an obesity epidemic, 75% of all americans are morbidly obese
>civil unrest as debt to GDP approaches 750%
>more and more non-boomer services closed down to finance their lifestyle
>boomers vote for 90% income tax for young
>it's happening

your face when this is what will actually happen, and you cant do anythig about it because loldemocracy. the boomer will always outvote you.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:36
No.4791844

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:36 No.4791844

>>4791759

Yes I understand the whole debt as a weapon thing but other superpowers depend on the US in other ways. If there was a war between the US and China how would China feed their army?

>inb4 by eating American corpses.


This is the only reason I know but I'm sure if you look it up there's more ways Russia and China depend on the US.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:37
No.4791858

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:37 No.4791858

WW3 can only be lost.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:38
No.4791869

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:38 No.4791869

>>4791858
Nah man.

We have anti-nuke lasers.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:38
No.4791872

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:38 No.4791872

>>4791810

No the people you owe debt to hold the power to collapse your dollar for you. See: Suez Canal.

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:41
No.4791908

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:41 No.4791908

>>4791844
True, but China and Russia are on the rise, whereas the USA is falling. The only reason they're still afloat is with the support of growing economies like China.

So, China might be low on food, but the entire American government and economy will collapse. They literally wouldn't be able to produce tanks or hire soldiers.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:42
No.4791915

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:42 No.4791915

>>4791782
The USN relies far too heavily on aircraft carriers. Every analysis during the Cold War showed that as soon as the USA got into a shooting war with a country that had access to ballistic missiles, carriers would start going down. If you can't be bothered reading the Pentagon assessments on this, go dig out Clancy's _Red Storm Rising_ which dramatized the same events.

Most USN thinkers and naval strategists in general believe that if the USA got into a shooting war with China or Russia, they would simply spam SSMs (or possibly air-launched missiles, depending on context). Despite the much-heralded glory of the Aegis system, the sad fact is that Silkworms and Sunburns are far beyond USN capacity to counter. Carriers *would* go down.

In the long term, the USN has the capacity to absorb those losses but general thought at present is that the US public would lack the ability to deal with something as traumatic as the loss of a carrier (let alone the likely loss of several carriers).

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:42
No.4791918

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:42 No.4791918

File: 1344778960922.jpg-(53 KB, 451x392, 1298295214002.jpg)

>>4791908
>Russia is rising

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:43
No.4791932

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:43 No.4791932

File: 1344779002213.jpg-(13 KB, 270x374, Picture-105.jpg)

>>4791908
>the entire economy will collapse

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:44
No.4791943

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:44 No.4791943

File: 1344779065411.gif-(5 KB, 360x260, russia1.gif)

>>4791918
>hurr

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:45
No.4791967

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:45 No.4791967

>>4791943
>no mention of what that graph is of

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:46
No.4791975

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:46 No.4791975

>>4791869

Those don't work against barrage attacks, but it does mean the only legitimate threat to the US is Russia, as nobody else can manage a true barrage.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:46
No.4791984

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:46 No.4791984

funny fact about russia - their population is growing again, at a for western standards high rate.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:46
No.4791985

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:46 No.4791985

>>4791943
dafuq is dat

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:47
No.4791986

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:47 No.4791986

File: 1344779225699.jpg-(792 KB, 768x1024, retard cat woman.jpg)

>>4791943
>unlabelled graph
>totally proves my point

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:47
No.4791989

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:47 No.4791989

File: 1344779239613.gif-(23 KB, 400x280, GDP-graph_1435181a.gif)

>>4791967
Alright, here's a different one.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:48
No.4791999

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:48 No.4791999

>>4791975
You don't seem to understand that we have secret Alien technology.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:48
No.4792007

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:48 No.4792007

File: 1344779327728.jpg-(113 KB, 400x350, 1316680156913.jpg)

>>4791999

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:49
No.4792019

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:49 No.4792019

you don goofed.

russia profits from a high oil price - as they sell so much oil.

china profits from a low oil price - to fuel their rise with cheap energy.

meanwhile the usa gets fatter and fatter while killing itself over non issues.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:49
No.4792021

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:49 No.4792021

File: 1344779381525.png-(16 KB, 700x300, youlied.png)

>>4791989

Anonimii !xCXQRLQgEs
08/12/12(Sun)09:51
No.4792037

Anonimii !xCXQRLQgEs 08/12/12(Sun)09:51 No.4792037

As long as it doesn't interfere with my internet connection, ww3 may continue as planned. I have a lot going on in AO, my enforcer is about to get ACDC, and my soldier is almost ready for pvp in tl5. I'm super stoked.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:51
No.4792042

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:51 No.4792042

File: 1344779486198.png-(19 KB, 700x300, youliedmore.png)

>>4791989
>>4792021

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:52
No.4792054

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:52 No.4792054

>>4792021
I'm sorry if the Telegraph wasn't a good enough source for you.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:52
No.4792055

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:52 No.4792055

>>4792042

Seems to me like Russia's growth is all the fuck over the place.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:52
No.4792058

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:52 No.4792058

>>4791986
I think I'll fap to this

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:53
No.4792075

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:53 No.4792075

File: 1344779631845.jpg-(85 KB, 600x346, nuclear-fallout.jpg)

>>4791627

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:54
No.4792088

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:54 No.4792088

why can't china and russia buttrape muslims and take over oil

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:54
No.4792090

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:54 No.4792090

>>4792054
>Telegraph
You mean russia today?
Also, I am sorry but as you see those numbers are deliberately false. Russia has never experienced 6% or higher GDP growth 2003-2007 and topped at 8% gdp growth.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:56
No.4792112

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:56 No.4792112

File: 1344779794982.jpg-(42 KB, 735x388, rusgdp.jpg)

>>4792021
>>4792042

Annual growth, bub.

animal !eeDbeu1Bp.
08/12/12(Sun)09:56
No.4792113

animal !eeDbeu1Bp. 08/12/12(Sun)09:56 No.4792113

>>4792090
But that's wrong.

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=c
ountry:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=russia+gdp+growth

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:57
No.4792121

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:57 No.4792121

File: 1344779829126.jpg-(34 KB, 679x304, usgdp.jpg)

>>4792112

Compare to US with its much lower growth rates.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:57
No.4792126

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:57 No.4792126

Amerifats don't know about muh EMP.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:57
No.4792127

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:57 No.4792127

You dont START a world war, OP.

You END one.

This is how USA has maintained its back-to-back world war championship title.

WWIII will be started by israel, fought by iran and saudi (the jewpuppets of tomorrow) and given world war status by russian interventions ( sale of planes, trains and cranes to iran)

Then the pakis will implode, india says fuck it and goes for kashmir, and china be like, nuh uh motherfuckers.

Then southeast asia says fuck yo china, zerg rush and free tibet and best korea.

Only after everyone has everyone else's dick firmly up each others butts, will America be like... All right fellas, we'll come fix this one for you again...

Take out russia (finally) from the inside, steal all their nukes and pay off the chinese debt by selling them eastern russia which theyve wanted forever.

Without russia, iran falls, pakistan takes indian dick up the bum, southeast asia (the other europe) stays free, plus marshall plan and US bases because murika strong

Any predictions on wo will be the france of southeast asia ( surrender within first year lel)

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)09:58
No.4792138

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)09:58 No.4792138

1st: wargaming is actually stupid, but since people are massively accepting it, I'm in too! (In other words, OP is fag)
2nd: >>4791782
Both Russia and especially China are going through rapid navy modernization process, and both will soon become a blue-water navies. Your army maybe is more advanced than the Chinese, but you can't measure that by the fact 20 US special soldiers have uberguns with night vision optics, you gotta take in count the whole army. As long as it has guns, it's pretty dangerous. And do you really think your 1.5 mil of active personnel can go against 2.2 mil of Chinese without problems? Or your 60 mils fit for military service against their 310? Let's not forget the US public debt and social protests in the Western countries happening lately.
Then again, we must ask the question of invading forces and use of nukes. Let's say there are no nukes. I suppose the countries would fight phony wars with each others, using other countries for guerilla attacks. Full scale attack on mainland of any country would be a disaster for the attacking force. If we look at the neighbours, US might be in a better position than China (they have Japan, Korea, Taiwan - all US minions), whereas the only danger for US could come from south (Bolivarian alliance, ALBA or whatever it is down there). There's anti-imperialist and anti-american mood down there.
Russia will maybe get analysed later.
Cheers for now!

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:00
No.4792156

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:00 No.4792156

>>4792138
> And do you really think your 1.5 mil of active personnel can go against 2.2 mil of Chinese without problems?
>Implying we won't just use endless airstrikes like real men.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:01
No.4792167

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:01 No.4792167

>>4792156
Implying THEY don't have air force and anti-air defence?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:02
No.4792189

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:02 No.4792189

>>4791627
>Russia and China
It's bad enough they're having problems recently; despite being regional partners. China's military build up in the pacific is making Russia feel on edge.

>Iran

LOL.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:05
No.4792220

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:05 No.4792220

Fucking retards. No one would win WW3.
If the Russians would be nuked off the earth before they finish taking their first mile walk into Europe and ofc the Russians would retaliate.
Same with China.

You can not win a nuclear war.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:06
No.4792234

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:06 No.4792234

>>4792127
>Impling the US ended either world war

wat.jpg Have you ever taken a history class?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:07
No.4792250

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:07 No.4792250

>>4792234

Did you?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:09
No.4792273

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:09 No.4792273

>>4792234
In case you were talking about WWII, yeah, they stopped Japan's plan by nuking them TWICE. In Europe it was mostly Russia's work (especially because Hitler said, after a failed invasion, that the war is lost). In both wars you decided to rush in late and act like a victor (3 years late in WWI and 2 years late in WWII). Anyway it's history, not like all the vets are going to fight this WWIII.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:12
No.4792309

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:12 No.4792309

>>4792167
>Implying we won't easily get air superiority.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:21
No.4792440

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:21 No.4792440

>>4792309
It's easy to have an air superiority over a country like Libya or Iraq where you and your 416541 NATO allies (well, our NATO allies since we're in NATO, too) gangbang their mediocre air force which consists of 5 planes and 10 helicopters. Try doing the same thing to Russia or China (and maybe both of them combined). Don't think it will be easy. You'd probably win against aircraft, but your losses would be high and I don't know how would it end up with anti-aircraft systems and rocket batteries. Don't think you're the meanest motherfucker of all, in such huge numbers none of our predictions can be true.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:28
No.4792556

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:28 No.4792556

>>4792440
The US has 3,318 fighter aircraft and 6,417 attack helicopters.
Next on the list is Russia with only 1,900 fighter. aircraft and 360 attack helicopters.
China has 1,500 fighter aircraft.
You people have no clue how much equipment the US actually has.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:37
No.4792702

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:37 No.4792702

File: 1344782254666.gif-(56 KB, 650x500, CG-map-3.gif)

>>4791627

Who's "we"? I don't think the underground bunkers can fit the entire population.

Any speculation on what the response of Russia/China/Iran will be if we attempt militarily intervene into Syria to prop up the failing CIA secret army "rebels"?

What are we afraid of?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)10:38
No.4792720

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)10:38 No.4792720

>>4792702
hurrr, theres no American bases in France at all

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)11:19
No.4793202

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)11:19 No.4793202

>>4792720
>>4792720

theres no American bases in France at all.
period.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)11:26
No.4793302

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)11:26 No.4793302

our air force is gonna be a piece of shit in no time with those F35s

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:29
No.4795507

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:29 No.4795507

If USA is the atacking side they can't send 100% of their forces overboard meaning that Russians and Chinese will enjoy superiority in numbers. Also Using fleet in modern warfare, enjoy unlimited orcket works sinking your ships lol.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:32
No.4795572

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:32 No.4795572

File: 1344792775506.jpg-(320 KB, 1034x852, nuclearholocaustfeel.jpg)

Russia will be a challenge even on its own. with china and iran, its much more difficult. we can't win. china's numbers + russia's advancement is hard to beat.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:53
No.4795952

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:53 No.4795952

>>4792220

lol this. Its like you people don't remember the old war even happened

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:55
No.4795979

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:55 No.4795979

>>4795952

*cold war

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:55
No.4795987

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:55 No.4795987

>>4795572
Russia has cut its forces by 90% since 2000, this has allowed them to modernize slightly but they are still running a shoestring budget.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:57
No.4796010

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:57 No.4796010

File: 1344794241195.jpg-(26 KB, 666x360, 0365066_13328_MC_Tx360.jpg)

>>4795572

You have no concept of modern warfare or the current military realities in the world, do you?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)13:59
No.4796028

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)13:59 No.4796028

>>4796010
no russia has advanced weaponry even if it cut its budget

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:05
No.4796152

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:05 No.4796152

You don't know shit about anything do you?

First the foreign policy: there won't ever be a WW3. The Cold War made this clear. Foreign policy has changed. No one wants to be the catalyst for the next mass cause of death and despair. If anything were to happen, Russia and Germany would team up. However, they have no personal vendetta against the USA-Japan team that is strong enough to cause all out war. Iran is going to be soon balanced out by Turkey and these two powers will be too busy with each other in future years. The same goes for Pakistan and India. And then there are hundreds of other countries that would make best attempt to avoid this war. No one wants it.

Second, the economics: the United States still controls about 25% of the world's wealth. Our private industry owns China. If kids in the USA start buying a new iWhatever, little kids in China will be there to work for them. And once their honestly great economic growth begins to slow down (as it always seems to do), the Chinese will start to realize that they are a gigantic mess because everyone is in abject poverty and once again, we will see China fall (as it always does). The mainland hasn't been invaded in over a century because everyone knows THAT WOULD BE FUCKING RETARDED.

tl;dr US private industries still own the world.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:06
No.4796161

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:06 No.4796161

>>4792556
>The US has 3,318 fighter aircraft and 6,417 attack helicopters.

How many of them do you think you could reliably locate to and equip for missions over, say, China?

Pro-tip: The capacity of a US supercarrier is not over three thousand planes

Aircraft don't mean shit anymore. Nor do aircraft carriers. It's all about ballistic subs these days.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:07
No.4796178

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:07 No.4796178

> tfw WWIII is coming and America are going to be the Nazis this time

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:07
No.4796183

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:07 No.4796183

>>4796152
The US mainland, that is.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:08
No.4796205

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:08 No.4796205

>>4791716
we may hate each other but i guarantee we hate other countries more

fuck, the tough choice will be do i stay home and laugh as the draft comes back kissing my honorable discharge or come back b/c i have 3 combat tours exp and make that sweet sweet e7 that much faster

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:11
No.4796269

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:11 No.4796269

As a white person I won't be fighting anything until the government recgonizes me as having racial interests and stops pandering to the spics/niggers/chinks who feel they should be able immigrate without restrictions.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:13
No.4796289

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:13 No.4796289

>>4796161
you don't think we have every serious ballistic sub out there targeted?

with sonar arrays and satellites, tracking is nothing these days. with heat plumes and ionized water, subs probably look like a christmas tree for satellites.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:13
No.4796292

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:13 No.4796292

>>4791869
the cbms (continental ballistic missile shield) has only been tested under ideal conditions against preprogrammed targets guy. at best we kill 2 out of every 5 missiles maybe 3, regardless if it goes nuclear i hope im in ground zero i dont want to survive the following 18 months before a semblance of order gets restored.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:14
No.4796314

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:14 No.4796314

Why Russia? I love those Ruskies, they're a cool bunch and would be a great ally.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:15
No.4796332

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:15 No.4796332

>>4796152
This.
If you wanna see the real future of war, play Metal Gear Solid 4. Just wait until places like Blackwater become commonplace and little conflicts all over the world are constant. War will be an even bigger business than it already is.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:17
No.4796376

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:17 No.4796376

>implying WW3 won't be won by the proletarian revolution

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:18
No.4796392

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:18 No.4796392

>live in the west
>fight for the glorious muitl-kult anglosphere

yeah I think I will sit this one out

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:18
No.4796400

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:18 No.4796400

>>4792138
china may have 310 million service age men but nearly all its industry is coastal. given that we have naval and air superiority id say they wouldnt have a chance to field it. before the first year we'd be balls deep in chinas coast. china has to go thru tiawan, japan, s. korea and india to get its "enemies", no doubt they can do it but it provides the us much needed ramp up time for full out war.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:18
No.4796404

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:18 No.4796404

File: 1344795526804.jpg-(69 KB, 900x687, StrangeloveKong1.jpg)

This is it boys! Noo-klear combat toe-to-toe with the Rooskies.

*Hums "When Johnny Comes Marching Home"*

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:19
No.4796422

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:19 No.4796422

>>4796392

Cowards die a thousand deaths. Move to Russia.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:20
No.4796427

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:20 No.4796427

>>4796400
me again not only that but we currently have a highly trained and war exp core of nco's and recent vets like myself who would come back against what? chinas untrained masses.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:20
No.4796430

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:20 No.4796430

>tfw a Britfag knowing that we are too far away to be invaded by China or Russia and America will be right there protecting us

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:22
No.4796468

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:22 No.4796468

File: 1344795774147.jpg-(45 KB, 340x255, 4072266_aef5627f62_m.jpg)

>>4796430

>Tfw when we will follow them into Iran.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:24
No.4796487

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:24 No.4796487

>>4796468
ahhhh the uk americas ferocious little terrier gotta love the brits, between them and the aussies they make deployments fun.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:25
No.4796504

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:25 No.4796504

Neither Russia nor China want war. They will both do as much politicking as possible to preserve their allies Syria and Iran, but their actions will stop well-short of going to war. China is only interested in making money. They will sit back and let the US bankrupt itself fighting war after war for Israel. Russia lacking any other options, will do the same. USA is a sinking ship and a war with Iran would be the biggest hole yet. My advice to you is to get out while you can. Immigrate to New Zealand or Iceland or something while your passports are still worth the tracker-chips they're printed on.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:25
No.4796507

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:25 No.4796507

File: 1344795938094.jpg-(96 KB, 600x482, tumblr_m3cjjjoOGr1r18y23o(...).jpg)

I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:28
No.4796573

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:28 No.4796573

>>4796487

I prefer to see us as your ailing but stalwart and gun-toting mother who you don't call often enough.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:30
No.4796607

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:30 No.4796607

>>4796332
Why does this statement fill me a sense of releif?

Anyway Kojima is a genius and there's probably never going to be another world war. Even if there was, no one wins. Google mutually assured destruction you ass-hats.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:31
No.4796622

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:31 No.4796622

>>4792126
yuropoors don't know about muh EMP Shielding.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:32
No.4796639

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:32 No.4796639

>Implying once the reality of the real enemy being the yellow peril is discovered, Americans will temporarily unite like the ending of watchman, engage in total war, and watch the world burn.

When a real threat arises, one capable of destroying everything you know or care for, people will change.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:32
No.4796641

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:32 No.4796641

>>4796422

It's not an issue of cowerdice bro, it's an issue of fighting for a country who is activly antagonistic to you and your beliefs.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:32
No.4796642

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:32 No.4796642

Isn't War who got us in this clusterfuck in the first place?

Why do you think more of it is going to fix anything?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:33
No.4796665

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:33 No.4796665

>>4791836

that feel when it all goes soylent green

>eugenics widely accepted
>euthanasia on national health plans
>they'll import more foreigners adding a greater house of cards
>indigenous best and brightest will pack up and go elsewhere

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:35
No.4796693

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:35 No.4796693

>>4796642
Because the definition of insanity is doing the same over and over and expecting different results. The world is insane.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:35
No.4796712

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:35 No.4796712

The Iranian Navy has quiet as fuck diesel submarines and make their own anti-ship missiles.
The U.S. has notoriously flimsy ASW. In almost every major naval simulation since the 1980s, the U.S. has lost at least one carrier.

Enjoy losing a carrier or two in the Persian Gulf when it happens.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:37
No.4796755

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:37 No.4796755

File: 1344796666949.png-(152 KB, 400x300, git_out.png)

>>4796641

>implying the bad guys would allow you to express a dissenting viewpoint.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)14:53
No.4797107

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)14:53 No.4797107

>>4792556
But the Russian/Chinese joint fiorce would crush our air force, because it's not like ALL of our planes outstrip theirs. Our F-22s aren't 100% of our air force, the planes t hey each have are recent. There hasn't been a huge change to air superiority fighters in decades. Do you think that, given a war, Sukhoi wouldn't be able to push out its Su-47, manufacture a larger stock of Su-33s for carrier flights when we get stuck in the persian gulf behind them?
They'll destroy us.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:02
No.4797289

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:02 No.4797289

If we get involved in WW3 this country will break out into revolution. I've had enough of this belligerence. The U.S. needs a revolution, followed by a period of prosperity, peace, and enlightenment.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:03
No.4797315

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:03 No.4797315

>>4797289
>revolution
>having its shit slapped in a war

>prosperity

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:35
No.4797978

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:35 No.4797978

>>4796607
Bro-fist for a fellow Kojima fan. Seriously though, you guys think war is a business now? Just you wait.

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59
08/12/12(Sun)15:38
No.4798027

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59 08/12/12(Sun)15:38 No.4798027

> muh America strong
Russia and China would rape you then nuke you for good measure while social order collapses and the US falls into a civil war.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:42
No.4798100

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:42 No.4798100

File: 1344800551590.jpg-(32 KB, 441x330, 3f0d8f71-4aa7-4276-887c-3(...).jpg)

>>4798027

>Believing US/NATO hegemony can be threatened.
>2012

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:43
No.4798121

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:43 No.4798121

File: 1344800636791.png-(166 KB, 777x1022, defence spending.png)

>>4798100

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:44
No.4798122

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:44 No.4798122

File: 1344800640163.jpg-(20 KB, 214x235, 35pvek.jpg)

>>4797107

Source: Tom Clancy's Endwar

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:44
No.4798139

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:44 No.4798139

>>4791627
>>4791908
ITT no one understands how economies/governments work.

If China decided to break all ties with us tomorrow, or in a better-case scenario waged war on the US, the 'debt'(really bearer-bonds) we owe them would be immediately wiped clean.

As to those saying the dollar would tank and we wouldn't be able to pay for tanks, you forget that:
1)we have a huge stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and raw materials for such things
2) The US government can and will take over the means of production. See: World war II. depression era, dollar worth shit, economy tanked. But they open factories to build tanks and shit anyway.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:44
No.4798146

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:44 No.4798146

File: 1344800687189.jpg-(319 KB, 625x943, enhanced-buzz-10004-13412(...).jpg)

Note that the United States cannot defeat Iran militarily, short of using nuclear weapons. It is easy to start a war. Finishing one is harder.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)15:44
No.4798150

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)15:44 No.4798150

>>4791627
we're going to win it
>we
I don't think that word means what you think it means
I think the rich are using the citizens as a human shield so they can continue to loot and brutalize the 3rd world
they probably will be safe or able to get away in a nasty terrorist attack

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:03
No.4798435

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:03 No.4798435

>>4798150
the rest of you are sitting ducks
It would give them even more power if was an attack

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:08
No.4798543

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:08 No.4798543

>>4798139
>If China decided to break all ties with us tomorrow, or in a better-case scenario waged war on the US, the 'debt'(really bearer-bonds) we owe them would be immediately wiped clean.
What is important is the recognition of the US Dollar as a standard currency to value other currencies off of. That will end the second the US does anything retarded. China is already buying into Russia for their Yuan.

>1)we have a huge stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and raw materials for such things
No. Ammunition demand has outdone the suppliers, and is going on to affect private sales of ammunition in the US.

>2) The US government can and will take over the means of production. See: World war II. depression era, dollar worth shit, economy tanked. But they open factories to build tanks and shit anyway.
Means of producing what? All your fucking factories are overseas now. You have farms that are going to get bumfucked by the next drought. That's about it. You're not even producing your weapons locally anymore. There are like 14 other countries tied into producing parts for the F-35.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:10
No.4798575

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:10 No.4798575

>>4791713
I don't get this. Held domestically, so, it's not actual debt you need to ever repay then?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:11
No.4798603

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:11 No.4798603

>>4798543
America has the 2nd highest factory output you stupid nigger

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:16
No.4798694

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:16 No.4798694

There's not going to be any large scale industrial war when all the major powers are armed with nuclear weapons. The most you'll ever see are some small to medium scale skirmishes, probably over islands in the pacific

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:19
No.4798762

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:19 No.4798762

>>4798603
but the owners of those factories would sell you out faster than a republican president if things started to turn bad

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:19
No.4798770

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:19 No.4798770

>>4798694
Even if there weren't nukes, full scale industrial war is way too expensive.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:21
No.4798808

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:21 No.4798808

>>4798770
I don't think the factory owners were planing to pay for it
just let the citizens pay, like every other war

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:21
No.4798811

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:21 No.4798811

File: 1344802918435.jpg-(22 KB, 400x400, 1297473419838.jpg)

>China can just demand its bonds at any time
image related

>>4798575
it means the bond holders are US citizens or corporations

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:44
No.4799259

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:44 No.4799259

>>4791782
>American navy
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/norfolk/uss-porter-collides-with-oil-tanker

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:53
No.4799424

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:53 No.4799424

>MFW America didn't "win" either of the World Wars
>MFW They just show up near the end, once other countries have done the work
>MFW I have no face

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)16:56
No.4799485

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)16:56 No.4799485

File: 1344804982782.jpg-(159 KB, 500x700, 1341461984744.jpg)

>tfw the military will not side with the corporate giants, and there will be no ww3 because if the military doesn't fight with the corporations then the corporations will cut them off

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)17:15
No.4799888

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)17:15 No.4799888

>>4792138
>2012
>not understanding isometric warfare.

Main land china would be destroyed. 3 gorges dam will be bombed day one. Entire Chinese air force gone within a week. Chinese, gone within that time. All major rail and bridges destroyed. Chinese logistically fucked, and scattered. Also, The US would destroy all known Chinese nuclear sites.

Russia, is a different story. they have one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world, and the 2nd largest air force. They also have more nukes then china and the US put together.

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59
08/12/12(Sun)17:18
No.4799940

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59 08/12/12(Sun)17:18 No.4799940

>>4798100
> Believing Defence spending = Strength of military
dat capitalist/military industrial complex delusion

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59
08/12/12(Sun)17:19
No.4799958

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59 08/12/12(Sun)17:19 No.4799958

>>4799888
US would still be fucked in land warfare and if the Chinese thought there was a threat to their nuclear sites they'd launch.

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59
08/12/12(Sun)17:19
No.4799975

Technosocialesst !!xw474HYuS59 08/12/12(Sun)17:19 No.4799975

>>4792138
Russia is already a blue water capable.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)17:28
No.4800132

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)17:28 No.4800132

>>4796152
You mean that BANKS in the US control 25% of world wealth? What, you think those banks are just going to throw in their money for the war cause? Also, with dollar being a fiat currency, you're unable to stop its decline (because it has no back up) if, in case of a war, other countries stop trading it. So all that money can be useless. Also, your info just says how much money someone has, not how much money is it worth. For example, in Africa whole village can life for a month with just few dollars. It suits their needs, but that village has a million time less wealth than some US or European village. Things aren't all black and white, where the one with more money is wealthier than the other. Btw, US poverty rate is 15.1 percent, and China's is around 16 (2006 stats).

>>4796400
Your industry makes up for 22.1 of your GDP, however I bet you it's mostly high-tech industry (IT, robotic, bioengineering). And as the guy who I quoted above stated, most of your shit is produced in China, starting from ships over plastics over electronics. So 25% of world's wealth mean shit if you can't use it to make something productive. All US factories based in US would get confiscated and used for military production.

And to all "no WWIII fags", as I said in one of my earlier posts, it's wargaming what we're doing. WWIII is unlikey to come so we're just theoreticising here.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)17:49
No.4800528

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)17:49 No.4800528

>>4791627

8/10 Op lollatron. Might read again.

Howsabout us Americans beat the tiny country of medieval cave men then we can think about someone better at fighting like maybe Bangladesh or Sudan.

Long way to go before we can fight against professionals like China or Russia lel.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)17:54
No.4800627

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)17:54 No.4800627

>>4791782

That Navy will do awesome against China or Russia wat.

Why can't your hyper-tech terminator army beat Afghanistan?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)17:55
No.4800647

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)17:55 No.4800647

Who is "we"?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:02
No.4800794

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:02 No.4800794

There won't be a World War III, certainly not between the US and the aforementioned countries.

Iran's problem is that it sees the US as erratic as fuck and it wants the US to take troops off its borders. Which the US wants anyway. The US and Iran fight Sunni Muslims as well, because the US hates the turrists and because Iran is a Shiite country. The US wants the Strait of Hormuz cleared, and Iran would like to profit from its proximity to the Strait. There's some horse trading to be done, but I think Iran will take entente with the US over war.

China doesn't own enough debt to "buy" the US, and the mechanics of US Treasury bonds make it unlikely that China will sell the bonds prematurely in an effort to tank the US bond market. Because of how the Fed has structures T-Bonds (irony goes here, /pol/) China can't efficiently "call in" its debt to the US.

Anonymous
WWIII08/12/12(Sun)18:04
No.4800820

WWIII Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:04 No.4800820

I do have a question. Why the fuck has the world realigned itself into these alliances once again? NATO/Israel/Japan/South Korea vs. China/Russia/Iran/North Korea? Didn't they learn anything from WWI, WWII, etc?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:04
No.4800832

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:04 No.4800832

>>4800627

Because the US chews through structured militaries, not insurgencies. You do not want to be a trained soldier going up against the US Armed Forces.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:06
No.4800860

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:06 No.4800860

>>4791627
>WW3 is coming
So?

>we're going to win it
Good for you

>Iran, China. and Russia are going to get raped.
So?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:06
No.4800876

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:06 No.4800876

>>4800647

Murrika

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:07
No.4800883

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:07 No.4800883

>carriers

lol, you better stick to cawwadooty. any nation with any bit of wealth is equipped with torpedoes that would sink carriers in seconds.

>f35
even china's new plane has been deemed better by several analyses. google it.

all murka can do is push around 3rd worlder armies like Iraq. yet they can't even win against 500 afghan farmers. and that's with all their NATO allies. lol

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:08
No.4800909

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:08 No.4800909

There won't be a WW3. Noone wants to be on the losing side. When nukes are used, everyone is on the losing side.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:09
No.4800931

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:09 No.4800931

Nah man I have a uncle up in afghanistan who killed 20 something american soldiers. Americans are too mentally deficient to fight wars.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:14
No.4801024

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:14 No.4801024

>>4800832

Ok, for the sake of ease I will concede the point that Americans are the best soldiers.

So you beat Russia's trained soldiers then you face an insurgency 8 times the size of Afghanistan.

The only thing that would die faster than the occupying force is the political and public will. Russia would just mount Obamas skull up there with Napoleon's and Hitler's.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:16
No.4801049

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:16 No.4801049

>>4800883
>doesn't realize that if US went in with total war mentality that conflict would have been over in a year.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:18
No.4801084

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:18 No.4801084

>>4801049

Vietnam says hi lel. Or Korea.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:18
No.4801088

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:18 No.4801088

>>4801024

You're assuming the US goal is to capture and hold territory, when US strategy in a conflict would be to go in, kill a shitload of military personnel and materiel, and then leave. We broke that basic strategy for the first time in a century with Iraq, and I doubt either the military or the public have the stomach to do it that way for a long time.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:20
No.4801125

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:20 No.4801125

>>4801088

So American Military Strategy is the equivalent of a drive-by shooting?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:21
No.4801138

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:21 No.4801138

File: 1344810100289.jpg-(443 KB, 2000x1429, 050219-N-6541W-001.jpg)

ITT. Retards that don't understand logistics and how the US can't feed an army big enough to permently defeat the insurgents of backwards countries without going into Total War mode due distances and geographic barriers. Logistics is what really wins or loses wars.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:22
No.4801147

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:22 No.4801147

>>4801088

Well, not a century, but for a good 40 years US policy regarding active deployment was either low-key or overwhelming force that was maintained for long enough to fuck up the enemy's basic goals.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:23
No.4801168

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:23 No.4801168

>>4801125

American foreign policy, really. When you have to get involved, hit them hard, hit them fast, and then leave. Detroit is actually a secret Army training ground to see if they can develop a scrawny nigger who can shank multiple targets *as* he runs.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:23
No.4801177

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:23 No.4801177

The last WW3 thread I saw on /new/ was literally the reason moot got pissed off and deleted it two days after.
It was sort of a symbol that the board had reached a peculiar level of shittiness that couldn't be tolerated.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:24
No.4801186

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:24 No.4801186

File: 1344810257814.jpg-(381 KB, 1280x958, 1305571919141.jpg)

The next WWIII will not be the US against Russia but Europe against itself, as always. WWIII will be an European "Civil War" with Russia, China and the US picking sides.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:25
No.4801217

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:25 No.4801217

>>4801186

Russia backs Germany
US backs Poland, Denmark and England
China backs France or perhaps Turkey

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:28
No.4801254

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:28 No.4801254

Unless there is a draft and america really ups its production. Its not going to win any war against a superpower.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:28
No.4801269

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:28 No.4801269

>>4800883

And what would constitute as winning in Afghanistan for you? War isn't fought by a bunch of guys running out in the open swinging their dicks at each other anymore. The United States has had plenty of victories in Afghanistan, and is making progress everyday. It's main concern at this time is nation building.

>any nation with any bit of wealth is equipped with torpedoes that would sink carriers in seconds.

Except it's not that simple. Carriers are accompanied with multiple layers of defensive ships and escorts. "Any nations" vessel that tried to sink one with a torpedo would be detected and destroyed in seconds.

>>4801084

Again, that's still one side fighting a limited war, and the other an unlimited war.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:29
No.4801286

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:29 No.4801286

>>4791664
>12% of us debt is foriegn held 8% of that is china.
>>4791712
>anybody fucking with the us military
>1945+

You do realize the us could literally take over the world with everybody allied against her. No nukes involved and civilians are killable targets so that geurilla warfare doesn't happen

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:30
No.4801297

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:30 No.4801297

File: 1344810620186.gif-(1.75 MB, 412x229, 1343534933899.gif)

>>4801254

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:30
No.4801300

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:30 No.4801300

>>4801168

so, how many times has this amazing drive-by tactic been used?

I'm thinking Vietnam (no) Korea (no) Iraq (no) Afghanistan (no)

If America, Europe and China invaded Russia from all sides, you might have a chance. As some anon pointed out a few posts back, the secret is supply.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:32
No.4801321

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:32 No.4801321

>>4801269

So America can win wars if your hands are not tied?

How were your hands tied in Korea or Vietnam? Agent Orange says hi.

Hands tied or not, can you actually tell me a war that the USA has won?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:32
No.4801326

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:32 No.4801326

File: 1344810748140.jpg-(17 KB, 500x299, how_does_eminem_spend_his_w.jpg)

>>4801300

>If America, Europe and China invaded Russia from all sides, you might have a chance.

Are people really this stupid? Do you really think russia is some invincible land? You do realize that war is normally for taking land and if you wan't to take land you kill or take their civilians as slaves. (Look at the romans/manifest destiny)

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:33
No.4801353

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:33 No.4801353

>>4801269
>"Any nations" vessel that tried to sink one with a torpedo would be detected and destroyed in seconds.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/?page=all

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2507300/posts

even diesel subs are threats and the navy has to waste a shitload of money constantly on uncertain defences.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:34
No.4801368

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:34 No.4801368

File: 1344810858593.gif-(492 KB, 314x219, 1344493669594.gif)

>>4801321

>no war declared
>only about 1/10th of our military capacity was used

>50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1955 and 1974.

>50,000
>2 million man military
>with draft would be 50 million

lalalalalalalalalal

Get fucked fagit. 1 aircraft carrier was in vietnam and we have 12

only 5% of the airforce was used. You don't know what war means do you. the us would FUCK YOU UP

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:34
No.4801375

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:34 No.4801375

There are thousand soldiers deployed over seas. If America wants to fight a super power it needs millions, more generals, aircraft tanks etc. Something it doesn't have now and they never will due to how the American public is. So deal with it fags you'll never beat any super power. Forever beta losing to piss poor countries.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:34
No.4801384

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:34 No.4801384

File: 1344810898108.jpg-(19 KB, 477x360, 02352525234634576456.jpg)

>>4801286

>You do realize the us could literally take over the world with everybody allied against her.

Nope. Being powerful doesn't mean omnipotent. The US is severly limited when it comes to grand scale land warfare. The same seas that protect the US from invasion also make the deployment of troops overseas a difficult task. More people is nedeed to carry ammunitions and food overseas. That severly limits the US land power and as result its forces are always outnumbered even by third world forces.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:35
No.4801389

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:35 No.4801389

>>4801326

Let me go a bit more recent than Romans and show you these guys called the Nazis. They tried to take Russian land. Didn't work out so well.

But forget Russia now. Tell me a war that the USA has won. I will count Civil War if you are struggling.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:35
No.4801399

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:35 No.4801399

>>4801353

>china sub stalked us fleet

cool story bro it would have gotten wrecked if we were at war before it even knew what was going on.

hurr durr what a destroyers/sonar

You realize a US f-22 can kill an enemy aircraft before their radar even detects it right?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:36
No.4801423

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:36 No.4801423

>>4801384
>The US is severly limited when it comes to grand scale land warfare

herpa derp that's why we have a big air force and an even bigger navy.

>That severly limits the US land power and as result its forces are always outnumbered even by third world forces.

100,000 us soldiers>3 million gooks with ak's.

The Slavic Caligula !O.N1d/WL9c
08/12/12(Sun)18:37
No.4801430

The Slavic Caligula !O.N1d/WL9c 08/12/12(Sun)18:37 No.4801430

>>4801326
Russia is a place where invaders and their empires go to die like Afghanistan. No one has successfully invaded Russia and lasted much longer than a few years.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:37
No.4801437

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:37 No.4801437

>>4801368

You should have been Nixons chief of staff or something. If only he had sent all of the USAF to Vietnam!!!! You guys would have won it.

But you didn't.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:37
No.4801440

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:37 No.4801440

>>4801389

>Romans
>conquering russia

what is history?

>nazi
>fighting a 3 front war
>hitler was a dipshit
>comparing technology then to now

lmao. germany had little to no snow warfare experience while americas biggest state is 96% snow that we can train on. herpa derp my lerp

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:38
No.4801444

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:38 No.4801444

>>4801326

Russia's geography neutralizes and limits the US navy. Using a navy against Russia is not all that useful.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:38
No.4801446

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:38 No.4801446

>>4801300

This is in no particular order but off the top of my head, over the last century:

Kuwait
Mexico
Spanish-American War
Nicaragua
Panama
Lebanon
Honduras
Grenada

Vietnam and Korea, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan were utilizing different policies. In Vietnam and Korea the US was figuring out the Soviet containment strategy (successful) and Iraq and Afghanistan are utilizing the War on Terror (unsuccessful)

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:39
No.4801456

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:39 No.4801456

>>4801399

>what's a destroyer/sonar

Something that is no guarantee of finding and killing modern submarines.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:39
No.4801458

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:39 No.4801458

>>4801437

>losing vietnam

lal

>>4801430

Us empire had a war in iraq and afghanistan and we are still alive. Yurop will fall before we do.

And yeah russia has been unconquered oh wait napolean beat your ass and comparing his technology to know is a joke. we would roll them. you are an idiot for thinking otherwise.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:39
No.4801462

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:39 No.4801462

>>4801423

So how many wars has the USA won then?

>inb4 war of independence haha

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:39
No.4801470

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:39 No.4801470

>>4801456

>no guarentee

fucking christ im literally leaving this thread too many retards

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:40
No.4801476

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:40 No.4801476

>>4801326

>Do you really think russia is some invincible land?

It is not invincible, but it is massive. The issue is that any Russian Commander who is not brain dead knows they can just keep retreating, and re-engage the enemy later. This increases the length of the enemy's supply lines, provided the Russian used scorched earth (which they have done before, and have no reservations about doing it again).

From the west to the east, Russia is roughly 6,600 miles long. That is a lot of space to back up.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:40
No.4801481

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:40 No.4801481

File: 1344811227155.png-(118 KB, 317x976, zulu1.png)

>>4801462

Military History of the United States
American War of Independence = US Victory
Northwest Indian War = US Victory
Quasi War = US Victory
Barbary Wars = US Victory
Creek War = US Victory
War of 1812 = British sue for peace, but ended in a stalemate/Status Quo Antebellum
Peoria War = US Victory
Seminole Wars = US Victory
Black Hawk War = US Victory
Texas Revolution = Texan/US Victory
Mexican-American War = US Victory
American Civil War = US (Union) Victory
American Indian Wars = US Victory
Spanish-American War = US Victory
Philippine-American War = US Victory
World War One = US/Allied Victory
World War Two = US/Allied Victory (Accredited for solely defeating Japan)
Korean War = Still technically going on
Bay of Pigs Invasion = US Victory
Vietnam War = US Tactical/Military Victory, US Strategic/Political Defeat
Cambodian Campaign = US Victory
Invasion of the Dominican Republic = US Victory
Invasion of Grenada = US Victory
Invasion of Panama = US Victory
Cold War = US/NATO Victory
First Persian Gulf War/Desert Storm = US Victory
War in Somalia = US Victory
Conclusion
The wars fought throughout the United States' history have been won, with the notable exception of a strategic and political defeat during the Vietnam War. The War on Terror and the Iraq War are ongoing with no decisive outcome yet.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:40
No.4801485

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:40 No.4801485

When the United States fights in the Eastern Hemisphere, it fights at great distances, and the greater the distance, the greater the logistical cost. More ships are needed to deliver the same amount of material, for example. That absorbs many troops. The logistical cost of fighting at a distance is that it diverts numbers of troops (or requires numbers of civilian personnel) disproportionate to the size of the combat force.

Regardless of the number of troops deployed, the U.S. military is always vastly outnumbered by the populations of the countries to which it is deployed. If parts of these populations resist as light-infantry guerrilla forces or employ terrorist tactics, the enemy rapidly swells to a size that can outnumber U.S. forces, as in Vietnam and Korea. At the same time, the enemy adopts strategies to take advantage of the core weakness of the United States -- tactical intelligence. The resistance is fighting at home. It understands the terrain and the culture. The United States is fighting in an alien environment. It is constantly at an intelligence disadvantage. That means that the effectiveness of the native forces is multiplied by excellent intelligence, while the effectiveness of U.S. forces is divided by lack of intelligence.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:40
No.4801491

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:40 No.4801491

russia beat a super power (nazi germany) America never will deal with beta faggots.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801502

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801502

>>4801485

The United States compensates with technology, from space-based reconnaissance and air power to counter-battery systems and advanced communications. This can make up the deficit but only by massive diversions of manpower from ground-combat operations. Maintaining a helicopter requires dozens of ground-crew personnel. Where the enemy operates with minimal technology multiplied by intelligence, the United States compensates for lack of intelligence with massive technology that further reduces available combat personnel. Between logistics and technological force multipliers, the U.S. "point of the spear" shrinks. If you add the need to train, relieve, rest and recuperate the ground-combat forces, you are left with a small percentage available to fight.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801504

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801504

>>4801476

nobody lives in sibera there is about 1500 miles of area where people live

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801509

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801509

>>4801470

Please do.

Perhaps you should go tell navy they should stop exercising with foreign diesel subs or at least always winning the mock games too.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801510

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801510

>>4801502

The example of the capitulation of Germany and Japan in World War II is frequently cited as a model of U.S. forces defeating and pacifying an opposing nation. But the Germans were not defeated primarily by U.S. ground troops. The back of the Wehrmacht was broken by the Soviets on their own soil with the logistical advantages of short supply lines. And, of course, Britain and numerous other countries were involved. It is doubtful that the Germans would have capitulated to the Americans alone. The force the United States deployed was insufficient to defeat Germany. The Germans had no appetite for continuing a resistance against the Russians and saw surrendering to the Americans and British as sanctuary from the Russians. They weren't going to resist them. As for Japan, it was not ground forces but air power, submarine warfare and atomic bombs that finished them -- and the emperor's willingness to order a surrender. It was not land power that prevented resistance but air and sea power, plus a political compromise by MacArthur in retaining and using the emperor. Had the Japanese emperor been removed, I suspect that the occupation of Japan would have been much more costly. Neither Germany nor Japan are examples in which U.S. land forces compelled capitulation and suppressed resistance.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801513

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801513

File: 1344811313538.png-(666 KB, 819x518, 1343673557796.png)

>>4801491

>super power (nazi germany)

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:42
No.4801518

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:42 No.4801518

>>4801446

Kuwait? Do you mean Gulf War 1? Total success old chap and mission accomplished. No need for Gulf War 2 at all wat?

Other than that, good list. You guys should stick to South America. I think poison dart blowpipes is more your game.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:42
No.4801524

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:42 No.4801524

anybody read the protocols of the elders of zion?

it's all there already

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:43
No.4801535

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:43 No.4801535

File: 1344811391874.jpg-(1.38 MB, 2034x1336, populationrussia.jpg)

>>4801476

>The issue is that any Russian Commander who is not brain dead knows they can just keep retreating

The size of Russia is misleading. There's a LOT of Russia, but only about a third of it is inhabited and viable to stage military operations from.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:43
No.4801539

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:43 No.4801539

Hurr. Wurr gonna win gaiz.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:43
No.4801544

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:43 No.4801544

File: 1344811417871.png-(115 KB, 900x902, 1341824260910.png)

>>4791627
>ww3
>winner

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:44
No.4801562

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:44 No.4801562

United States can't handle the mexican drug gangs in the south of its border which is afghanistan 2.0. You see the shit they post on bestgore? No way can they win against any opponent with average iq and above.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:45
No.4801565

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:45 No.4801565

File: 1344811506401.jpg-(14 KB, 300x195, 300px-M1-A1_Abrams_Fire.jpg)

The US army was not designed for fighting in Russia. The US main battle tank consumes way too much fuel to be of any use in a territory as vast as, just, Western Russia.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:45
No.4801566

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:45 No.4801566

>>4801504

Population of Siberian Federal District: 38 million

Yeah, nobody at all.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:45
No.4801573

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:45 No.4801573

>>4801518

Gulf War 2 was launched for completely different reasons than Gulf War 1.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:46
No.4801581

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:46 No.4801581

>>4792156

yes, the army with greater numbers usually wins. But if that were a certainty, mathematicians would rule the world, not presidents

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:46
No.4801587

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:46 No.4801587

>>4801481

Somalia?

World War 2?

You beat Japan totally alone?

Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq - the big conflicts. You can't win them. Meanwhile the world laughs at you.

Except Israel, it just pats you on the head like the good boy that you are.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:46
No.4801589

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:46 No.4801589

>>4801581
numbers don't mean shit with today's technology

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:47
No.4801590

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:47 No.4801590

There are two problems with American strategy. The first is using the appropriate force for the political mission. This is not a question so much of the force as it is of the mission. The use of military force requires clarity of purpose; otherwise, a coherent strategy cannot emerge. Moreover, it requires an offensive mission. Defensive missions (such as Vietnam and Korea) by definition have no terminal point or any criteria for victory. Given the limited availability of ground combat forces, defensive missions allow the enemy's level of effort to determine the size of the force inserted, and if the force is insufficient to achieve the mission, the result is indefinite deployment of scarce forces.

Then there are missions with clear goals initially but without an understanding of how to deal with Act II. Iraq suffered from an offensive intention ill suited to the enemy's response. Having destroyed the conventional forces of Iraq, the United States was unprepared for the Iraqi response, which was guerrilla resistance on a wide scale. The same was true in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency is occupation warfare. It is the need to render a population -- rather than an army -- unwilling and incapable of resisting. It requires vast resources and large numbers of troops that outstrip the interest. Low-cost counter-insurgency with insufficient forces will always fail. Since the United States uses limited forces because it has to, counterinsurgency is the most dangerous kind of war for the United States. The idea has always been that the people prefer the U.S. occupation to the threats posed by their fellow countrymen and that the United States can protect those who genuinely do prefer the former. That may be the idea, but there is never enough U.S. force available.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:47
No.4801592

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:47 No.4801592

>>4800883

Agreed on most points. But "winning" in Afghanistan? They're just playing world police, it's not a war it's COIN. Arguably the same thing I guess but it's not total war and those farmers were fighting the Russians while the yank infantry were still in diapers. They won't stop fighting until foreign troops leave, it pretty much says that shit in the Koran(Quran?). If victory consists of trial and error for out how best to police a civilian population and quell rebellion I'd say victory is achievable because your just gathering information on how to manage an army in a certain way. But the Idea of victory in the traditional sense is impossible in COIN, bar genocide.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:48
No.4801606

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:48 No.4801606

>>4801589

You are overstimating modern technology, my little armchair general.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:48
No.4801608

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:48 No.4801608

We couldn't even beat Vietnam or Canada. We're even struggling with a shithole like Afghanistan. If you think we can win against China and Russia combined, you're delusional.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:48
No.4801616

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:48 No.4801616

Obama is a retarded yes man nigger. Does he look like a war time leader? If a ww3 starts him and his capitalist friends will all leave for china leaving Americans to die.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:49
No.4801621

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:49 No.4801621

>>4801535

> There's a LOT of Russia, but only about a third of it is inhabited and viable to stage military operations from.

That's exactly the point. You make your enemy fight somewhere it is disadvantageous to fight from. There are towns and cities (big ones, with millions of people), all up and down the length of the TranSib

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:49
No.4801632

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:49 No.4801632

>>4800883

This.

America spends a lot of money on carriers.

China//Russia spends a lot of money on missiles. Works out cheaper and it's far more effective.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:50
No.4801649

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:50 No.4801649

File: 1344811855169.gif-(1.67 MB, 350x197, 1344342972373.gif)

>>4796178
Is dis a good thing

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:51
No.4801653

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:51 No.4801653

>>4801590
By having an unclear mission, you have an uncertain terminal point. When does it end? You then wind up with a political problem internationally -- having engaged in the war, you have allies inside and outside of the country that have fought with you and taken risks with you. Withdrawal leaves them exposed, and potential allies will be cautious in joining with you in another war. The political costs spiral and the decision to disengage is postponed. The United States winds up in the worst of all worlds. It terminates not on its own but when its position becomes untenable, as in Vietnam. This pyramids the political costs dramatically.

Wars need to be fought with ends that can be achieved by the forces available. Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:51
No.4801662

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:51 No.4801662

>>4801565
Then what is it designed for?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:54
No.4801699

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:54 No.4801699

File: 1344812055182.jpg-(19 KB, 183x262, nigger.jpg)

America will win and this is why:

Russian soldiers will be to drunk on vodka and busy having sex with transvestites.

Iran is to poor, stupid and smelly to fight.

China has no Navy so their army would get tired and drown trying to swim to America.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:54
No.4801706

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:54 No.4801706

>>4801662

Defense of Western Europe against Warsaw Pact with plenty of support from the US navy. Every big strategist was certain that the war would go nuclear sooner or later anyway.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:55
No.4801726

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:55 No.4801726

>>4801621

Just because it's hard for the enemy doesn't mean it's not hard on you. Most Russian industrial bases are in the East where all the fucking people are. If an enemy force captures everything up to Muscovy, it's GG for Russia because the Russian military lacks the logistics needed to launch attacks from nonindustrial sites.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:55
No.4801730

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:55 No.4801730

>>4801662

It was designed to be flown between theaters on C-5's and C-17's, not driven between them.

If they are going to be ground transported, they are usually loaded on to trucks or taken by rail.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:56
No.4801740

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:56 No.4801740

So, if we cannot occupy and bring freedom and prosperity to the enemy, the only option i see is to defeat their military and just bomb the whole country to shit, and then we will come back every other year for a re-run, to prevent their infrastructure from becoming a threat. Keep this up for a few decades until it's an integrated part of society and the last inhabitants of russia and china are dead.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:58
No.4801765

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:58 No.4801765

>>4791712

as a fellow european you embarass me. russia and europe won't go to war again

also, have you got any idea how loaded with weapons usa's allies are around the world?

>>4792127

the idea is to take out china

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:00
No.4801795

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:00 No.4801795

>>4801730

Which would be crippling in Russia because the Russian strategy centered around attacking and sabotaging the logistic lines of the invaders which tend to get overstreched and vulnerable due how vast the Russian territory is.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:01
No.4801810

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:01 No.4801810

>>4801632

AEGIS. You heard of it?

Missiles, even China's supposed 'anti aircraft carrier' missile, are insignificant threats to enemy submarines, which are insignificant threats to our submarines.

And keep in mind most of these long range missile defense systems are built on static instalations that will be target #1 from 1500 miles out with a cruise missile.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:01
No.4801817

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:01 No.4801817

>>4791712
I assume you're just trolling, but come on now, please. China doesn't have really good intercontinental missiles and they don't have a navy at all. How would they even begin to try attack the US? The only thing they have going for them involves superior ground power, which when you can't actually land on US soil..
Also, Russia raping Europe? Lolright. France and the UK both actually have ridiculous military and naval spending and Germany, as always, is a sleeping powerhouse.
gooby plz.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:02
No.4801833

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:02 No.4801833

File: 1344812551843.jpg-(1018 KB, 2272x1704, MOAB_bomb.jpg)

>no nukes

The Russians and the Americans would just cheat and spam FOAB and MOAB throughout the entire war.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:04
No.4801863

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:04 No.4801863

>imperialist America starts WW3
>most of the US forces are quickly defeated due to the fact the US doesn't fight Arab Wolverines but an actual army this time
>most US carriers are quickly sunk too because they were fighting an actual enemy this time, instead of Arab wolverines (who had no access to big missiles, boats, planes and torpedoes)

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:04
No.4801864

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:04 No.4801864

>>4801795

What is an IADS, Alec?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:05
No.4801884

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:05 No.4801884

Russia is happy enough with its secret romance with Germany with little dwarf France looking with jealousy while the US lust with envy. No need to invade when Germany wants Russia integrated in Europe becuase they are sick of the US whinning that Germany don't do that much in their military adventures.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:05
No.4801891

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:05 No.4801891

>>4801863

>US
>losing to a professional army
>ANY YEAR FROM 1853 TO PRESENT

Kill yourself.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801895

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801895

File: 1344812889073.jpg-(72 KB, 500x305, 1335732189949.jpg)

If global nuclear exchange occurred, WW3 would realistically last only around 4 to 5 hours. The resulting devastation would end further conflict.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801900

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801900

>>4801864

Not enough and you can't emply naval support because Russia's main population centers are far away from most ports.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801909

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801909

Listen Ameribros, I know its a good feeling to hide behind 'lolbestmilitary we untouchable' but if the US was to start a war against all three of OP's mentioned nations, then she would be without a doubt well and truly fucked. If you seriously think Russia/China wouldn't rather nuke swathes of their own country and eventually yours if they were occupied ala Iraq/Afghanistan then you are truly deluded beyond anyone's ability to help. You have no money, no public will to go to war, and most importantly you were seriously tied up in tiny Iraq (and still in Afghanistan) with huge amounts of troops being stationed or rotated through both nations, and one country had no army while the other was a demoralised shambles, and the insurgencies are 2nd-tier to be honest. You couldn't go toe-to-toe with a power like Russia/China. Next time you want to have these shitty infantile fantasies/trolls please choose a more feasible target, like Vietnam.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801915

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801915

File: 1344812934951.jpg-(97 KB, 645x600, 645px-Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg)

>>4801833
or fucking FIRE RAIDS!

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:09
No.4801920

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:09 No.4801920

>>4801884

>US pulls support from Germany
>supports Poland instead to block the Berlin-Moscow entente

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:10
No.4801930

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:10 No.4801930

>>4801863
>Imperialist America starts World War 3
>Wipes out every navy at once using out 13 or so supercarriers.
>Bombs everyone for decades.
>One by one the nations in the world surrender when they realize that we can keep bombing them for decades.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:10
No.4801937

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:10 No.4801937

>>4801900

I don't think you understood my post. I was saying that you can't go flying C-5's and C-17's around willy-nilly until you deal with the Russian Integrated Air Defense System. Even if you do manage to completely neutralize it, it's going to cost a lot of time and money.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801948

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801948

>>4801138
even with these zilions of lollars spend on military? Oh, lol...
>>4800820
Yes, why indeed. One cannot win with Russia in conventional war - too much territory or China - too much people (vide Germany and Japan). on the other hand USA - too much potential for war industry and distance. Only option is unconventional war, but is there someone crazy enough to go nuclear... Still maybe USA didn't throw these zilions to toilet, they may have some surprises...
>>4801368
>with draft would be 50 million
remember Nazi Germany how many men they drafted? Did that helped them against Soviets? Imagine Russians with China's reserves instead... Only option is nukes or something new - there are anti missile lazors, aren't they?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801950

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801950

File: 1344813084625.jpg-(709 KB, 3888x2592, Brahmos_imds.jpg)

>waaah but the TV said our carriers are unsinkable

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801954

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801954

>>4801920
How would that stop anything? Oh my God...
>He thinks Poland has a military capable of standing up to Russia let alone Russo-Germanic alliance
>laughing_cossacks.jpg

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801955

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801955

>>4791836
The boomers will die off by 2025, hopefully

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801967

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801967

File: 1344813140617.jpg-(65 KB, 449x455, map.jpg)

>>4801920

>Poland
>Comparable to Germany and Russia.
>Implying that Poland wouldn't get raped from two sides.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801971

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801971

>>4801726
>East
>Moscow

Nice try.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801975

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801975

>>4791645
>remember detroit
Niggers can't do anything but riot and get brutally beaten down.

>organized combat
>niggers
Pick one.

They've never beaten whitey on the field where they didn't outnumber him at least 100:1.

Also
>implying anyone would fight for a non-white america
I'd rather fight for slavs.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801977

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801977

>>4801955
I don't understand all this blind Boomer hate. My fucking parents (and probably yours) are late boomers. Why the fuck are you so keen to see them dead?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:13
No.4801986

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:13 No.4801986

>>4801954

>Install strategic systems in Poland
>defend them with US troops
>pour US capital and equipment into Poland's economy and military
>guarantee Polish independence from Germany and Russia
>Poland becomes a much tougher nut to crack

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:13
No.4801991

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:13 No.4801991

>>4801950

based BRAHMOS

dat multiagent systems programming

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:13
No.4801997

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:13 No.4801997

>>4801977
Most of the boomer hate originates from America.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:14
No.4802005

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:14 No.4802005

>>4801986
Just because it would become tougher to crack doesn't mean it wouldn't crack like the Liberty Bell when Russia and Germany are rawdogging it from either end.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:14
No.4802011

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:14 No.4802011

Iran will win by default because their real goal was to start WW3 in the first place.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:15
No.4802029

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:15 No.4802029

>>4801997
Oh well that explains everything. Most American 4channers' parents are Gen X. No wonder Occupy is so big (and retarded) over there

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:16
No.4802038

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:16 No.4802038

Remember Detroit