# U.S. vs.



## Archreaper93 (Apr 24, 2010)

Is there any country the United States couldn't defeat one-on-one?
I don't think so.
No nukes.
If biological warfare and chemical warfare are as bad as nuclear warfare, no weapons of mass destruction period.


----------



## Black Sabbath II (Apr 24, 2010)

jedijohn said:


> Is there any country the United States couldn't defeat one-on-one?
> I don't think so.



Spain.

The chicks there are too hot to kill.

MAMACITA~


----------



## masamune1 (Apr 24, 2010)

With enough prep and guile, and a damn the consequences attitude, many countries could feasibly do it. Crazed supervillain plots for the win. 

Plus, defeat in war-terms is a vague concept. The Vietcong defeated America, after all.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Apr 24, 2010)

Do they have to be real countries?


----------



## Archreaper93 (Apr 24, 2010)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Do they have to be real countries?



Yes they have to be real.
Why do you ask?


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Apr 24, 2010)

Australia.

We are smarter.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Apr 24, 2010)

Lol, bro said Australia.


----------



## Glued (Apr 24, 2010)

Red Star

 Crimson Dynamo

 Comrade Turbinski

 Red Rocket

 Ivan Drago

Dark Star

 Red Ghost

 Boris Yeltsin


----------



## Glued (Apr 24, 2010)

Bolsheviks

Fedor Emelianenko

 Bartok

 Red Guardian

 Black Widow

 Colossus

Zangief 

 Gorbachev


----------



## Glued (Apr 24, 2010)

Anastasia

Alexander Kraelin

 The KGB

 Stalin

 Vodka

 Balalaika

 Vorg Zangief

 Chekov from Star Trek


----------



## Glued (Apr 24, 2010)

Russian bear

The Kremlin

Valuev

Jack 5

Dragunov

 The Nutcracker

 Tevye the Milkman

 Omega Red


----------



## Mider T (Apr 24, 2010)

Ben Grimm said:


> Bolsheviks



Why is it written in Arabic?



Champagne Supernova said:


> Australia.
> 
> We are smarter.


----------



## Glued (Apr 24, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Why is it written in Arabic?



Just an arabic translation.


----------



## Superrazien (Apr 24, 2010)

*Spoiler*: __ 



The country of Bush!


----------



## Z (Apr 24, 2010)

Superrazien said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> The country of Bush!



Wrong time period brah.


----------



## Eboue (Apr 24, 2010)

you mean entire military in infinite field?  Or actually invading? You beat everyone  (without nukes) in a huge field, but if you invaded them theirs plenty of countries you would lose to.

Sorry theres no funny russian pictures.

insert zangief here, or james bond villain. maybe evil Chinese person


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 24, 2010)

jedijohn said:


> Is there any country the United States couldn't defeat one-on-one?
> I don't think so.



Obvious nationtard is obvios...... but sadly even I dont approve the thread I must admit you are right, well China may be the exception


----------



## Archreaper93 (Apr 24, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> Obvious nationtard is obvios...... but sadly even I dont approve the thread I must admit you are right, well China may be the exception



Is there a problem with nationalism?  As long as you don't overdue it, nationalism is fine.  And I don't think I overdid it.


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Apr 25, 2010)

Japan, they have Gundams


----------



## Platinum (Apr 25, 2010)

In military terms U.S. pretty much stands alone. Best other countries could hope for is a tie by nuking each other.


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Apr 25, 2010)

How well can you survive being in a jungle?


----------



## Stermor (Apr 25, 2010)

well if you exclude nukes. since well any country's with nukes will make it a tie. most nucleur countries have the fire power to wipe out another country and vice versa. 

china would likely slaughter america(excluding nukes). they have both the recources, the man power and the weaponary to outlast and maybe even straight up beat america. also they have the attitude to win a war over america. 

but wars these days are more based on econmics. china will just stop loaning the us money. it won't be to long before america crumbles (maybe a decade). in that time china can prepare to just write of the usa debt(would make the vulnurable to other country's but they are not arround in this fight). and poor mans america will be easy picking for china. 

also if you have a significant group of people with some good skills, and a good plan. you can take down most country's. (cut of communications. destroy transport, then pick off important targets. 
it is likely that a country like china even has a plan to take down the usa. if they manage to send in 50000 trained soldiers and have them take out initiaal targets, then send in a million more for the secondary targets. they should be abel to cripple the usa to a point that it will destroy itself. 

ofcourse this all means the country would need proper prep.


----------



## Herekic (Apr 25, 2010)

> china would likely slaughter america(excluding nukes). they have both the recources, the man power and the weaponary to outlast and maybe even straight up beat america. also they have the attitude to win a war over america.



lol no.


the chinese military is still vastly inferior to america. the only advantage china would have is sheer numbers, which mean nothing in today's world.


america dominates both the sea and the sky. china wouldn't be able to actually use their huge army because whenever they tried leaving their country they'd get obliterated.

they can't compete at all with U.S aircraft or ships, meaning their huge army is going to be sitting around in china doing nothing, because they have no way to mobilize them.


then U.S would begin sending in the stealth bombers and mass aircraft attacks.



China absolutely could not militarily defeat the U.S one on one.


----------



## Diskyr (Apr 25, 2010)

If the US goes to war (anywhere) they might win. Granted the US has not fought an actual war since 1939-1945.  The Us defense budget is over 260 billion and the chinese rank #2 at an estimated 110 billion (bumped up from the reported 70 billion from the chinese government.)  China only has one active aircraft carrier when we have nine active nuclear no to mention the active pre nuclear carriers. China has considerably less nuclear weapons than the Us and they are all located in close proximity to each other.  The us has the second largest arsenal of nukes 12,000 (russia having 24,000) but their nukes are strategically scattered throughout the world (the only country to do so) and are much more advanced.  The Us has missile defense shields (in three stages) to protect the mainland and its allies.  The Chinese and US military is composed of volunteers (leading to a higher moral) and are much more likely to pull through under duress.China has an arguably powerful navy but it would be almost impossible to send troops to the US mainland without American interference.  The US would have competent air superiority, but would have trouble in impairing the Chinese ability to re-supply their troops.  I could go on and on but that gives us a brief outlook of each countries military capabilities


----------



## Platinum (Apr 25, 2010)

Stermor said:


> well if you exclude nukes. since well any country's with nukes will make it a tie. most nucleur countries have the fire power to wipe out another country and vice versa.
> 
> china would likely slaughter america(excluding nukes). they have both the recources, the man power and the weaponary to outlast and maybe even straight up beat america. also they have the attitude to win a war over america.



China doesn't even come close to having the capability of mobilizing their army to invade another country. Besides the US would just slaughter them at sea or in the sky.



> but wars these days are more based on econmics. china will just stop loaning the us money. it won't be to long before america crumbles (maybe a decade). in that time china can prepare to just write of the usa debt(would make the vulnurable to other country's but they are not arround in this fight). and poor mans america will be easy picking for china.



That makes no sense at all.





> also if you have a significant group of people with some good skills, and a good plan. you can take down most country's. (cut of communications. destroy transport, then pick off important targets.
> it is likely that a country like china even has a plan to take down the usa. if they manage to send in 50000 trained soldiers and have them take out initiaal targets, then send in a million more for the secondary targets. they should be abel to cripple the usa to a point that it will destroy itself.



You really don't know anything about modern military tactics do you?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

veget0010 said:


> Japan, they have *Gundam*


Unfortunately it's only one 

Also, on a more serious note, _no_ single country in the world could currently beat the US in a war. Mainly for the fact that they would _never_ be able to actually invade. The only military powers that could legitimately threaten the US are China and maybe Russia, but that's about it, and they'd never land. The rest can be taken out relatively casually.

If you're counting nukes, however, it only takes ~10 Nukes to fuck the world over anyhow, so everyone loses regardless.


----------



## Diskyr (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Unfortunately it's only one
> 
> Also, on a more serious note, _no_ single country in the world could currently beat the US in a war. Mainly for the fact that they would _never_ be able to actually invade. The only military powers that could legitimately threaten the US are China and maybe Russia, but that's about it, and they'd never land. The rest can be taken out relatively casually.
> 
> If you're counting nukes, however, it only takes ~10 Nukes to fuck the world over anyhow, so everyone loses regardless.



Who says the United States is unstoppable?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Diskyr said:


> Who says the United States is unstoppable?



B-2s will sink every ship they could send out from a few thousand feet up in the air and never be discovered.

F-22 will down any aircraft before they even know they are dead.

I could go into detail, but this is really all I should ever need.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 25, 2010)

Platinum said:


> In military terms U.S. pretty much stands alone. Best other countries could hope for is a tie by nuking each other.



sir we are about to lose our air superiority(give china and russia ten years and their kick our asses with better combat airplanes), we are destroying our nukes, and may destroy more (in favor of weaker but faster weapons), we are getting our ass kick by the taliban so no i don't think we stand alone


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> sir we are about to lose our air superiority(give china and russia ten years and their kick our asses with better combat airplanes)


US has over a 20 year lead in Stealth Technology. Russia, the second most advanced air power in the world has yet to build an aircraft that can match even the primitive and obsolete F-117 Nighthawk in terms of stealth.

The standards of the US Airforce? The B-2 Spirit is the single most technologically advanced plane ever built. _Ever_. It takes more money to build one of these puppies than 90% of the countries in the world make in a year. And maintanance costs a shit-load too. It is the stealthiest, most deadly bomber ever made, undetectable, and near impossible to kill at night.... And it is being replaced because it was deemed obsolete and useless by modern standards.

The US has had air superiority since the Cold War and it will remain that way until our military entirely falls apart because our _entire_ military is based around air support if you'd notice. Most especially our Navy. USAF _is_ the US Military.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> we are destroying our nukes, and may destroy more (in favor of weaker but faster weapons)


But we still have many times more nukes than any country except Russia.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> we are getting our ass kick by the taliban so no i don't think we stand alone


Except the Taliban are terrorists and it's _impossible_ to effectively fight terrorists as they fight dirty. They hide in crowds and play civilians, so unless you want to cause civilian massacres, the way it's being done now is actually the most effective.


----------



## Herekic (Apr 25, 2010)

> sir we are about to lose our air superiority(give china and russia ten years and their kick our asses with better combat airplanes), we are destroying our nukes, and may destroy more (in favor of weaker but faster weapons), we are getting our ass kick by the taliban so no i don't think we stand alone




what?


We are WAY ahead of  both china and russia in military tech, and our growth isn't slowing down.


it's more like in 10 years those 2 will have caught up to where we are now, while we've moved on even further.


and ass kicked by who?


the taliban barely even fight back. we only have problems because we're actively hunting them. in terms of outright fighting we've been crushing them from day one.


hell, we beat iraq in like what, 2 weeks?


the hell are you smoking? nobody has even come remotely close to "kicking our ass" in the last 20 years.


even vietnam was only "lost" because we simply stopped it. because of public outcry we only used a portion of our military, and we left the country for the same reason.


nobody has ever "beaten" America in a war.


----------



## Lord Genome (Apr 25, 2010)

What kind of war? Just trying to blow each other up or control the other country and actually care about civilians?


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> US has over a 20 year lead in Stealth Technology. Russia, the second most advanced air power in the world has yet to build an aircraft that can match even the primitive and obsolete F-117 Nighthawk in terms of stealth.
> 
> The standards of the US Airforce? The B-2 Spirit is the single most technologically advanced plane ever built. _Ever_. It takes more money to build one of these puppies than 90% of the countries in the world make in a year. And maintanance costs a shit-load too. It is the stealthiest, most deadly bomber ever made, undetectable, and near impossible to kill at night.... And it is being replaced because it was deemed obsolete and useless by modern standards.
> .


yeah but it is not like we have a shitload of those, of the F-22 raptor we have only like around 187 last time i check(yesterday) and they cost less than B-2 and F-177 nighthawk, and B-2 cost like a billion per plane if i'm not mistaken and i believe we have more F-22 raptors (but i could be wrong) but what I'm sure about the B-2 and F-177(which are 4th generation fighters) is that they lose the stealth advantage when they get in a dogfight, china and russia are estimated to have world class fleats of fifth generation air planes for 2020, we, with our costly fifth generation (and small) fleet are only in the top by the different of a hair   



> The US has had air superiority since the Cold War and it will remain that way until our military entirely falls apart because our _entire_ military is based around air support if you'd notice. Most especially our Navy. USAF _is_ the US Military.


our airplanes are old, and the new ones are just way to small of a fleet




> But we still have many times more nukes than any country except Russia.


thanks to obama administration  



> Except the Taliban are terrorists and it's _impossible_ to effectively fight terrorists as they fight dirty. They hide in crowds and play civilians, so unless you want to cause civilian massacres, the way it's being done now is actually the most effective


that is a problem, we don't know how to handle wars 



Herekic said:


> what?
> 
> 
> We are WAY ahead of  both china and russia in military tech, and our growth isn't slowing down.
> ...


no in ten years the chinese will have world class fleets of J-XX those baby are fifth generation airplanes like the F-22 raptor the difference is while we whine about the bill that comes for each one of those, china and russia don't give a darn about it  



> and ass kicked by who?
> 
> 
> the taliban barely even fight back. we only have problems because we're actively hunting them. in terms of outright fighting we've been crushing them from day one.


the fact that we need air strike in daily basis to fight them beg to differ


> hell, we beat iraq in like what, 2 weeks?


irak is a third world country with airplanes older than ours which are as old as beetles



> the hell are you smoking? nobody has even come remotely close to "kicking our ass" in the last 20 years.


they just keep coming closer, that is the problem, we got to the top and beat the S.U. and thought of us as invencibles, that no one was going to reach us, we became pacifist and now we are destroying our nukes, next thing you know we will lose our superiority in the seas



> even vietnam was only "lost" because we simply stopped it. because of public outcry we only used a portion of our military, and we left the country for the same reason.


and why did the public cry, because our soldiers came in bags by the hundreds, and the war started to drag without us getting nothing

nobody has ever "beaten" America in a war


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 25, 2010)

Sadly I dont see USA defeated on one-one fight with anyone, but I do see them stalemate with China, simply China cant get their troops outside China, USA doesnt have the manpower to invade mainland China, when none of the countries are able to invade the enemy mainland is a stalemate


----------



## masamune1 (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Also, on a more serious note, _no_ single country in the world could currently beat the US in a war. Mainly for the fact that they would _never_ be able to actually invade.



Canada.

Because you'd never expect it.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> yeah but it is not like we have a shitload of those


We could always build more, ya know?

Also, we have entire fleets of F-35 Lightning IIs planned. Aircraft that are partially stealthy and outperform most fodder aircraft from other nations. We also have aircraft like the F-15 and F/A-18E Super Hornet which even today are very good fighters (although it is soon to be replaced by the F-35), and we still have hordes of them.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> of the F-22 raptor we have only like around 187 last time i check(yesterday)


And an F-22 can easily take on a whole squadron, off them before they ever detect it. That's what they were _designed_ for. A squadron of F-22 can take on much, much larger forces and win due to its superb maneuverability and stealth technology.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> and they cost less than B-2 and F-177 nighthawk,


A F-117 costs about a third of what an F-22 costs....



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> and B-2 cost like a billion per plane



Adjusting for today's prices, probably more.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> and F-177(which are 4th generation fighters) is that they lose the stealth advantage when they get in a dogfight


Wrong. The F-*117*, not 177, is not a fighter. It's an attacker. Not a multirole, not a fighter. It has absolutely _no_ AA capabilities and doesn't even have a gun. The F-117 is a fighter in the same way the A-10 is a fighter.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> china and russia are estimated to have world class fleats of fifth generation air planes for 2020


Where is this estimate from? 

We already have fleats of fifth generation planes. How big do you think these fleats will be? 

_No_ incarnation of the F-15 (one of the most popular, efficient USAF Jet Fighters ever built) has much over 350 jet aircraft built. Even the Tomcat that once composed the backbone of our Navy's Air Force only built 712. These are aircraft that were built during the Cold War when America was still rediculously rich. These were planes that were cheap, only costing between 30-40 million. An efficient stealth fighter today costs about 140-150 _million_ dollars, and that is for the US who has the most advanced and cheapest access to stealth technology in the world.

_No_ country in the world has displayed the capabilities to build something as complex as the relatively primitive F-117 yet. Do you think they are suddenly going to jump to technology as complicated and advanced as the F-22 and now _obsolete_ B-2??

That's right, the B-2, the single stealthiest and most advanced aircraft in the world which even the US has yet to build something better then since it was unveiled is being declared obsolete and being replaced. _Those_ are _our_ standards.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> we, with our costly fifth generation (and small) fleet are only in the top by the different of a hair


_All_ Fifth Generation planes would be expensive. But, the whole point is Quality over Quantity. Make an aircraft that can single-handedly down one or two enemy squadrons without being detected instead of spamming aircraft that can be easily killed by it.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> our airplanes are old, and the new ones are just way to small of a fleet


Lolwhat? Our F-15s can still contest with some of the newer fighters from the 90s out there. Our F-35s can take on the majority of aircraft save for the high performance models. Our F-22s were built so that one squadron of five could easily take on 4-5 enemy squadrons and survive and are amongst some of the highest performance fighters in the world piloted by some of the best pilots in the world.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> that is a problem, we don't know how to handle wars


Lolwhat? We have never actually lost a straight up war. If we would be more willing to slaughter civilians then we could have easily won Vietnam and the problems in the Middle-East. But I, like most Americans, do not condone the murder of innocents.

We know how to handle wars damn well. We've gone up against world powers who were _much_ stronger than us and won (Early America vs. Britain, War of 1812), World Super Powers (Germany, WWI&WWII), and won. And it was America that made Spain go from a world power to just another country during the Spanish American War when we destroyed most of their Navy.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no in ten years the chinese will have world class fleets of J-XX those baby are fifth generation airplanes like the F-22 raptor the difference is while we whine about the bill that comes for each one of those, china and russia don't give a darn about it


Oh no! The Chinese will have aircraft that can _maybe_ compare to technology we've had since the beginning of the milenia! And we _definitely_ won't have _anything_ to compare against it.

Not to mention that we don't even have stats on the J-XX other than rumored things. So it might as well end up slower, less maneuverable, and less stealthy than the F-22.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> the fact that we need air strike in daily basis to fight them beg to differ


Do you not listen when I said that our military is built around our airforce?? As well as that it is _always_ faster to get an aircraft to support a group of soldiers than it is to get tanks in. It's taking advantage of what we have, it's what you do in war. Obviously you know nothing of how war works.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> irak is a third world country with airplanes older than ours which are as old as beetles


No, _Iraq_ was a country that had Russian military aircraft. And some damn good ones too. Iraq actually had a relatively modern military for its time. And we won in _two_ weeks.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> they just keep coming closer, that is the problem, we got to the top and beat the S.U. and thought of us as invencibles, that no one was going to reach us, we became pacifist and now we are destroying our nukes, next thing you know we will lose our superiority in the seas


What's you point here? We still have the largest airforce in the world, the largest navy in the world, and the most advanced military in the world. Since the Cold War ended we have continued to innovate and improve military technology. None of that crap has happened. What _has_ happened is that we've started to invest less in war because we are no longer in a state of emergency when war could break out any moment.

As for the Navy. America is the _only_ country in the world that possesses more than one Super Aircraft Carrier. The _only_ one. China has _two_ planned. We have 10. _Ten_ Nizmitz class supercarriers. That's five times more than them. _And_ on top of that, we are constructing at least three more Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers which are even bigger and more advanced.

Last but not least, our F/A-18Es and F-35B/Cs will still be more than enough to deal with the majority of airborne naval aircraft.....

Moreover, China's superaircraft carriers will be built on a model of a carrier they bought from Russia. Cold War Supercarrier tech vs. Modern Supercarrier tech+5 times more carriers of the same time period but all around superior.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> and why did the public cry, because our soldiers came in bags by the hundreds, and the war started to drag without us getting nothing
> 
> nobody has ever "beaten" America in a war


_Wrong_. We left Vietnam because all our soldiers were dying in a war that America had _no_ reason to be in, in the first place.



Orochibuto said:


> Sadly I dont see USA defeated on one-one fight with anyone, but I do see them stalemate with China, simply China cant get their troops outside China, USA doesnt have the manpower to invade mainland China, when none of the countries are able to invade the enemy mainland is a stalemate


Our ground military is actually superior to theirs. This is because we have more advanced systems, as well as that the majority of their weaponry is outdated Cold War tech. Case and point, a _large_ majority of their tanks are old Cold War Russian models which are now obsolete.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> Canada.
> 
> Because you'd never expect it.



Lol, but but we could wipe the floor with Canada anyway


----------



## masamune1 (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Lol, but but we could wipe the floor with Canada anyway



That's only what they want you to think.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Oh, also, I forgot to mention that the US' military budget is many, many, many times what China's is....


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 25, 2010)

Chinas economy is too linked with ours for its survival in a war  with the US not to mention they are so far behind us it's not even funny

in peace time we have the largest military budget in the world can you imagine a fucking war with another super power? full national industrial might brought against an enemy?

we saw this once..eighty years ago Germany and Japan got buried under aircraft 

Russia kinda can't get it up any more..unless it;s against third world countries...

maybe *just* maybe..possibly..the EU but I have my doubts actually fuck that

they can barely build one super carrier...or what ever the fuck that monster the US has on the drawing board is called 

we're gonna have two or three rolling out over the next five years with one coming out next year..the second strongest economy in the world can barely manage one..with much of the tech purchsed from us...and much of the equipment bought from the us china and Japan

they have to out source their shit..for just one ...

the idea that china or russia will catch up to the US..is silly it would take a radical alteration in their national mindset and about ten or twenty years of near constant military build up..


----------



## Han Solo (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> US has over a 20 year lead in Stealth Technology. Russia, the second most advanced air power in the world has yet to build an aircraft that can match even the primitive and obsolete F-117 Nighthawk in terms of stealth.



Not yet, and we won't really know how stealthy the PAK FA is until it enters service at the earliest.

I'd like to know how many F-35's are still being planned considering the meltdown that the project has become. The cost rises are worse than the Typhoon's, and that was a clusterfuck of shit at best.

Robert Gates getting fired just showed how bad it really is...


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Our ground military is actually superior to theirs. This is because we have more advanced systems, as well as that the majority of their weaponry is outdated Cold War tech. Case and point, a _large_ majority of their tanks are old Cold War Russian models which are now obsolete.



Do you have an idea of how outnumbered USA would be in mainland China? granted China couldnt do a shit to USA they wouldnt be able to move their military past a few countries if they are able to move at all, but again there is NO WAY USA can enter mainland China, invade it and occupy it, you underestimate numbers


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 25, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> We could always build more, ya know?
> 
> Also, we have entire fleets of F-35 Lightning IIs planned. Aircraft that are partially stealthy and outperform most fodder aircraft from other nations. We also have aircraft like the F-15 and F/A-18E Super Hornet which even today are very good fighters (although it is soon to be replaced by the F-35), and we still have hordes of them.


I doubt we can produce enough, fast enough, the whole project has suffer from a meltdown, war time isn't going to make it easier, and the other planes are good as fodder, the F-15 was develop in the sixties produced in the seventies to meet demands from the cold war era, which at this point aren't realistic, that is the main reason they created the F-35 



> And an F-22 can easily take on a whole squadron, off them before they ever detect it. That's what they were _designed_ for. A squadron of F-22 can take on much, much larger forces and win due to its superb maneuverability and stealth technology.


actually i'll like you to take a good look at this in a war against china they will be of not utility, they will be the equivalent of the V-2 for Germany 




> A F-117 costs about a third of what an F-22 costs....


they were retired in 2008



> Adjusting for today's prices, probably more.






> Wrong. The F-*117*, not 177, is not a fighter. It's an attacker. Not a multirole, not a fighter. It has absolutely _no_ AA capabilities and doesn't even have a gun. The F-117 is a fighter in the same way the A-10 is a fighter.


sorry, I was so much into fighters



> Where is this estimate from?
> 
> We already have fleats of fifth generation planes. How big do you think these fleats will be?
> 
> ...


actually if we go for what the Russians have disclosed here and there it could probably have an AI, you can read more , also notice that the congress ended the production of the F-22  


> That's right, the B-2, the single stealthiest and most advanced aircraft in the world which even the US has yet to build something better then since it was unveiled is being declared obsolete and being replaced. _Those_ are _our_ standards.


Russia is creating airplanes to compete with F-22 and we are ending the program to produce more 


> _All_ Fifth Generation planes would be expensive. But, the whole point is Quality over Quantity. Make an aircraft that can single-handedly down one or two enemy squadrons without being detected instead of spamming aircraft that can be easily killed by it.


yeah



> Lolwhat? Our F-15s can still contest with some of the newer fighters from the 90s out there. Our F-35s can take on the majority of aircraft save for the high performance models. Our F-22s were built so that one squadron of five could easily take on 4-5 enemy squadrons and survive and are amongst some of the highest performance fighters in the world piloted by some of the best pilots in the world.


yet they wouldn't turn the tide of a war with china for example


> Lolwhat? We have never actually lost a straight up war. If we would be more willing to slaughter civilians then we could have easily won Vietnam and the problems in the Middle-East. But I, like most Americans, do not condone the murder of innocents.


no we just don't know how to handle wars


> We know how to handle wars damn well. We've gone up against world powers who were _much_ stronger than us and won (Early America vs. Britain, War of 1812), World Super Powers (Germany, WWI&WWII), and won. And it was America that made Spain go from a world power to just another country during the Spanish American War when we destroyed most of their Navy.


dude that was when presidents use to have some balls, to do what needed to be done, now they are pacifist, seriously we screw Korea, we screw Vietnam, the gulf was less screw, yet we screw with Iraq and Pakistan, i don't know if you read the New York post in the opinion section there is a guy, who will explain you why we screw   



> Oh no! The Chinese will have aircraft that can _maybe_ compare to technology we've had since the beginning of the milenia! And we _definitely_ won't have _anything_ to compare against it.
> Not to mention that we don't even have stats on the J-XX other than rumored things. So it might as well end up slower, less maneuverable, and less stealthy than the F-22.


dude if our best weapons are the F-22 raptors  , with out their J-XX 



> Do you not listen when I said that our military is built around our airforce?? As well as that it is _always_ faster to get an aircraft to support a group of soldiers than it is to get tanks in. It's taking advantage of what we have, it's what you do in war. Obviously you know nothing of how war works.


and that is why we failing behind, partly, we depend on our air forces yet we don't update them enough


> No, _Iraq_ was a country that had Russian military aircraft. And some damn good ones too. Iraq actually had a relatively modern military for its time. And we won in _two_ weeks.


dude their airplanes when like from when the soviet invasion to Afghanistan 



> What's you point here? We still have the largest airforce in the world, the largest navy in the world, and the most advanced military in the world. Since the Cold War ended we have continued to innovate and improve military technology. None of that crap has happened. What _has_ happened is that we've started to invest less in war because we are no longer in a state of emergency when war could break out any moment.
> As for the Navy. America is the _only_ country in the world that possesses more than one Super Aircraft Carrier. The _only_ one. China has _two_ planned. We have 10. _Ten_ Nizmitz class supercarriers. That's five times more than them. _And_ on top of that, we are constructing at least three more Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers which are even bigger and more advanced.
> 
> Last but not least, our F/A-18Es and F-35B/Cs will still be more than enough to deal with the majority of airborne naval aircraft.....
> ...


you know they want to replace the F-35 





> _Wrong_. We left Vietnam because all our soldiers were dying in a war that America had _no_ reason to be in, in the first place.


if we were truly good, we wouldn't have lost



Han Solo said:


> Not yet, and we won't really know how stealthy the PAK FA is until it enters ervice at the earliest.
> 
> I'd like to know how many F-35's are still being planned considering the meltdown that the project has become. The cost rises are worse than the Typhoon's, and that was a clusterfuck of shit at best.
> 
> Robert Gates getting fired just showed how bad it really is...


have a look at


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 25, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> Do you have an idea of how outnumbered USA would be in mainland China? granted China couldnt do a shit to USA they wouldnt be able to move their military past a few countries if they are able to move at all, but again there is NO WAY USA can enter mainland China, invade it and occupy it, you underestimate numbers



I donn't see why not ghengis khan took most of China and korea and did so..with a population that was maybe one or two percent of China

the british empire and the empire of Japan did similar...

the US outguns china..has better tech and better weapons..not to mention can with the gloves off and human rights..tossed to the winds

lay utter waste to every major city in china..to the extent that they'd be bombarded back into the BC times..and this is sans nukes

using only chemical weapons and napalm/MOAB's and those new ubber missiles


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> Do you have an idea of how outnumbered USA would be in mainland China? granted China couldnt do a shit to USA they wouldnt be able to move their military past a few countries if they are able to move at all, but again there is NO WAY USA can enter mainland China, invade it and occupy it, you underestimate numbers


Except that a lot of land weaponry in China is obsolete. Not by a few years, but by a few decades.

Having numbers doesn't mean much if your enemy can still run circles around you, tank nearly everything you throw at it, and then one-shot everything you have in return.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> I doubt we can produce enough, fast enough, the whole project has suffer from a meltdown, war time isn't going to make it easier, and the other planes are good as fodder, the F-15 was develop in the sixties produced in the seventies to meet demands from the cold war era, which at this point aren't realistic, that is the main reason they created the F-35


Lolwhat? Are we talking about the country that could produce _entire ships_ over a few days (42) in WWII?



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> actually i'll like you to take a good look at this in a war against china they will be of not utility, they will be the equivalent of the V-2 for Germany


Mind pointing out where it points that out? I've read through some of it and most of it talk about airbases and a possible Taiwan scenario.




Blackfeather Dragon said:


> they were retired in 2008


Your point? That much I already knew. I was just pointing out the cost. An F-117 was 3 times cheaper than an F-22.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> actually if we go for what the Russians have disclosed here and there it could probably have an AI, you can read more , also notice that the congress ended the production of the F-22


It was talking about the radar system, not the plane itself....

Also, as for now there is no actual need to produce more F-22s....



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> Russia is creating airplanes to compete with F-22 and we are ending the program to produce more


Yet we can still produce more if the need be.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> yet they wouldn't turn the tide of a war with china for example


How not exactly???



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no we just don't know how to handle wars
> dude that was when presidents use to have some balls, to do what needed to be done, now they are pacifist, seriously we screw Korea, we screw Vietnam, the gulf was less screw, yet we screw with Iraq and Pakistan, i don't know if you read the New York post in the opinion section there is a guy, who will explain you why we screw


No, that was when we didn't have to worry about a civilian pulling out an AK and shooting or suddenly blowing up and taking everything within a few meters of it.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> dude if our best weapons are the F-22 raptors  , with out their J-XX


Except that there is currently no _need_ to build more F-22s. We are already getting ready to build 6th Gen aircraft that are more advanced than current 5th Gen one, as you've posted. _No_ country in the world except the US currently has 5th Gen aircraft in service. China is developing, Russia has yet to introduce it into service. Why overproduce when there is currently no need to?

Moreover, why overproduce when we might already be replacing it? Don't forget that the F-22 and B-2 Projects were huge black project which the public didn't know of for quite a while.

The B-2 was introduce in '97. It is already being replaced. The F-22 was introduced in '05. How much longer do you think it'll last before its replaced with better technology? The PAK-50 enters service in 2013 and it will take about _40 years_ to deliver all the promised units, by which it will be obsolete most likely. And the J-XX won't enter service until 2020.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> and that is why we failing behind, partly, we depend on our air forces yet we don't update them enough
> dude their airplanes when like from when the soviet invasion to Afghanistan


Yet we have the largest airforce in the world. We have the most advanced airforce in the world. From choppers to aircraft, they hold the best.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> you know they want to replace the F-35
> Way to just kill yourself.... So, while the rest of the world is trying to catch up and build 5th Gen aircraft, we are already planning to build 6th Gen aircraft. How far behind we are indeed....
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Yup, just read the whole slideshow. It is useless since it refers to operations in Taiwan and the Pacific, not protecting the US Mainland from an invasion....


----------



## Lord Genome (Apr 25, 2010)

Like i said, is this a battle to occupy and control the other country or just win at all costs?

Cause china would be screwed if we didntcare about their civilians


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Apr 25, 2010)

Saoudi Arabia

No oil for US = no vehicles for US. 


As you can see I gave this a lot of thought.


----------



## dream (Apr 25, 2010)

Should insects ever unite under one country we would be raped beyond imagination.  Horrible horrible rape.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

Lord Genome said:


> Like i said, is this a battle to occupy and control the other country or just win at all costs?
> 
> Cause china would be screwed if we didntcare about their civilians


They are regardless, just that if we don't care for their civilians it's easier for us and we lose less people than they do.



Kind of a big deal said:


> Saoudi Arabia
> 
> No oil for US = no vehicles for US.
> 
> ...


Saudi Arabia??

We use whatever oil we do have and just invade them and take it by force


----------



## masamune1 (Apr 25, 2010)

Kind of a big deal said:


> Saoudi Arabia
> 
> No oil for US = no vehicles for US.
> 
> ...



Most US oil comes from Canada. Saudi Arabia would destroy it's own ecnomy if it stopped trading with America, which is only the second main supplier and not the only alternative either. It would harm the US but SA would suffer a lot more.



paulatreides0 said:


> They are regardless, just that if we don't care for their civilians it's easier for us and we lose less people than they do.



If the US cares about civilians but China does'nt (their's or Americas) things might be different. They could at least pull off a phyric victory.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 25, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> Most US oil comes from Canada. Saudi Arabia would destroy it's own ecnomy if it stopped trading with America, which is only the second main supplier and not the only alternative either. It would harm the US but SA would suffer a lot more.


Then we blow up Canada and take over it's oil too 



masamune1 said:


> If the US cares about civilians but China does'nt (their's or Americas) things might be different. They could at least pull off a phyric victory.


Except they'd never land on US soil. Maybe non-nuclear ICBMs?


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 26, 2010)

> Having numbers doesn't mean much if your enemy can still run circles around you, tank nearly everything you throw at it, and then one-shot everything you have in return.



Having numbers means a lot when you risk literally being outnumbered a few hundred to one. China counts a third of the TOTAL world population under its flag - somewhere just under 3 billion last time they counted - and its population has historically been willing to take up arms even against superiorly-armed opponents regardless of how crappy their rulers have been, winning through sheer numbers... while the US barely goes over 400 million inhabitants if memory serves, and most of those 400 million are fat nerds who wouldn't know which side of a rifle should be pointed away from them, much less be able to fight with any sort of effectiveness, and would therefore be completely worthless in an invasion effort.

Invading China would mean a war of attrition... and they'd win simply because they'd grossly outnumber any invading force the US can muster, in spite of inferior weaponry.

Even if you kill 50 chinese for every 1 soldier you lose, they'd still outlast you. There's simply too many Chinese available to the regimen to win in a straight up face to face war. And the Chinese have been brainwashed thoroughly enough that they WOULD beat back the perceived invaders. Nowadays, most countries hate America a lot more than they hate anyone else, due to very poor decision making in the last decade.

As for Russia... their army doesn't matter. They have Russia itself as an ally. There's a reason why ALL invasion efforts in Russia have failed - the cold season is deadly to invading armies there, and Russians aren't afraid to burn everything down and salt the earth to make sure the cold catches you pants down. Even with their half-dilapidated army, they are still formidable enough when on their home turf.

Invading the biggest nation in the world in terms of sheer landmass is a losing proposition, as General Winter will kick your ass just like it did everyone else before you. The Russians don't even have to DO much besides burn everything that could even remotely be of use to you and wait until you have overextended yourself on its immense territory.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Having numbers means a lot when you risk literally being outnumbered a few hundred to one. China counts a third of the TOTAL world population under its flag - somewhere just under 3 billion last time they counted - and its population has historically been willing to take up arms even against superiorly-armed opponents regardless of how crappy their rulers have been, winning through sheer numbers... while the US barely goes over 400 million inhabitants if memory serves, and most of those 400 million are fat nerds who wouldn't know which side of a rifle should be pointed away from them, much less be able to fight with any sort of effectiveness, and would therefore be completely worthless in an invasion effort.
> 
> Invading China would mean a war of attrition... and they'd win simply because they'd grossly outnumber any invading force the US can muster, in spite of inferior weaponry.
> 
> Even if you kill 50 chinese for every 1 soldier you lose, they'd still outlast you. There's simply too many Chinese available to the regimen to win in a straight up face to face war. And the Chinese have been brainwashed thoroughly enough that they WOULD beat back the perceived invaders. Nowadays, most countries hate America a lot more than they hate anyone else, due to very poor decision making in the last decade.


As far as warfare goes, our aircraft can run pound them into submission. And not just pound them into submission, some can do it without ever being detected. We have aircraft even stealthier than those who can destroy any target on the ground before they are ever found and hell, even the F-22s are equipped to carry out bombing runs.

As for the ground, the US has drastically better technology. Their Cold War technology can't compare to our modern technology. Our Abrams can easily not only run circles around their tanks, but they can literally snipe them from far outside their own ranges as well. The majority of Chinese tanks home built variants based off of the T-54, about two-thirds actually. This is technology from about the fifties and sixties against modern day technology. Reactive armor, larger and more powerful and accurate guns, much better speeds, maneuverability, and survivability, there is a _huge_ difference between the two forces. This applies in many fields as well, we can outgun them at ranges far beyond their own, as well as that we have entire fleets of close air support aircraft and attack helicopters that are some of the most advanced in the world.

As for the airforce, we have about 2.1k Fighter aircraft vs. their 1.3k aircraft, with most of our aircraft being either equivalent or superior to theirs. In terms of sheer aircraft as well, 5.6k for Us vs. and just over 1.8k for China. We are also the _only_ country in the world who currently has aircraft capable of taking on entire squadrons single handedly, as well as aircraft that can single-handedly run bombing runs without very much need for an escort.

And in terms of a Nav- Wait...what Navy? The Chinese Navy is, quite frankly, a joke. The US' Naval Aircraft are superior to the Chinese Aircraft as a whole, and we have _far_ greater air projection capabilities than they do. We have larger fleets, better fleets, more carriers, and more planes for those carriers. Not to mention that we might not even need the said fleets, a few stealth aircraft could literally wreck entire fleets without much trouble, at most a diversion would be needed, and if it is during a night mission, dear god....

In terms of numbers, numbers are good, but _only_ if you can actually hurt your enemy before they hurt you. If you can barely scratch it, things won't go very well for you... And as the Mongols proved, numbers don't mean everything either.



Lucifeller said:


> As for Russia... their army doesn't matter. They have Russia itself as an ally. There's a reason why ALL invasion efforts in Russia have failed - the cold season is deadly to invading armies there, and Russians aren't afraid to burn everything down and salt the earth to make sure the cold catches you pants down. Even with their half-dilapidated army, they are still formidable enough when on their home turf.
> 
> Invading the biggest nation in the world in terms of sheer landmass is a losing proposition, as General Winter will kick your ass just like it did everyone else before you. The Russians don't even have to DO much besides burn everything that could even remotely be of use to you and wait until you have overextended yourself on its immense territory.


Russia is not uninvadeable, it's just that examples such as Hitler and Napolean entered Russia without being prepared. In the case of the Nazis, they had horrible supply lines and equipment that was prone to break down in such extreme weather.

Also, reminds me, wasn't USAF working on Active Camouflage to make their aircraft nearly invisible to the human eye as well as the Radar? I remember reading something about it a few years back.


----------



## Sonikk (Apr 26, 2010)

I would say
Russia could defeat US easly


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 26, 2010)

> In terms of numbers, numbers are good, but only if you can actually hurt your enemy before they hurt you. If you can barely scratch it, things won't go very well for you... And as the Mongols proved, numbers don't mean everything either.



The Mongols failed in large part because of the Great Wall stopping them cold from making runs into China. It's hard to argue with a 4000 kilometers long mass of stone and weapons on top of it preventing you from taking a single step past that point.

Incidentally, the Great Wall was built in record time because literally MILLIONS of chinese worked on it at once, and most of them died during it. How's that for obsession with defending the land?

Simply put, if someone invades China, count on no allies. Chinese, in general, dislike outsiders more than their own regimen, for various reasons. And when the numbers are so disproportionately in China's favor on land, 2000 airplanes are barely going to make a dent in such a mass of humanity, unless you nuke them... and if we bring nukes in this, China has them too and the best the US can hope for is a tie as MAD happens.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Sonikk said:


> I would say
> Russia could defeat US easly


Not at all....



Lucifeller said:


> The Mongols failed in large part because of the Great Wall stopping them cold from making runs into China. It's hard to argue with a 4000 kilometers long mass of stone and weapons on top of it preventing you from taking a single step past that point.


What? The Mongols _conquered_ China.



Lucifeller said:


> Incidentally, the Great Wall was built in record time because literally MILLIONS of chinese worked on it at once, and most of them died during it. How's that for obsession with defending the land?


More like they were forced to by the emperor. The same emperor who would have you beaten if you slacked, and had his enemies and dead workers made a part of the wall because it was cheaper and quicker that way. It wasn't volunteer work by patriots, quite a bit of it was actually forced labor.



Lucifeller said:


> Simply put, if someone invades China, count on no allies. Chinese, in general, dislike outsiders more than their own regimen, for various reasons. And when the numbers are so disproportionately in China's favor on land, 2000 airplanes are barely going to make a dent in such a mass of humanity, unless you nuke them... and if we bring nukes in this, China has them too and the best the US can hope for is a tie as MAD happens.


Good thing that we have over 5k aircraft, the 2k are only fighters 

We have more weaponry than they do. We have more advanced weaponry then they do. We have greater projection capabilities than they do. We have more resources than they do. The only thing China has for itself is its population, and that doesn't mean very much when you are so drastically outnumbered.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Chinas economy is too linked with ours for its survival in a war  with the US not to mention they are so far behind us it's not even funny
> 
> in peace time we have the largest military budget in the world can you imagine a fucking war with another super power? full national industrial might brought against an enemy?
> 
> ...



LMAO! This post is too funny. 

"in peace time we have the largest military budget in the world can you imagine a fucking war with another super power?"

That is exactly why the United States will get buttfucked when trying to sustain a long term war. You and others are stating that American armies are superior to China when the United States spends over 500 billion on military annually and China spends only around 59 billion. Germany also outspended their opponents prior to WWII and their superior technology raped in the beginning but the playing field was becoming even because wartime production > peacetime production. The United States will just eat its economy away while China could sustain a large budget.

China would be the only country to be able to put up a good fight. The Americans would have the advantage in the beginning but Chinas manpower and economy would hold off better the United States. Its ludicrous to think that China will just sit there with shitty technology and get ass raped, there are enough precedents to maintain that this does not happen when two large powers go at it. If China is lacking military technology they will obtain it throughout the course of war unless of course the United States does a swift victory which i doubt.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 26, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> The Mongols failed in large part because of the Great Wall stopping them cold from making runs into China. It's hard to argue with a 4000 kilometers long mass of stone and weapons on top of it preventing you from taking a single step past that point.
> 
> Incidentally, the Great Wall was built in record time because literally MILLIONS of chinese worked on it at once, and most of them died during it. How's that for obsession with defending the land?
> 
> Simply put, if someone invades China, count on no allies. Chinese, in general, dislike outsiders more than their own regimen, for various reasons. And when the numbers are so disproportionately in China's favor on land, 2000 airplanes are barely going to make a dent in such a mass of humanity, unless you nuke them... and if we bring nukes in this, China has them too and the best the US can hope for is a tie as MAD happens.



You _do_ know that the Mongols conquered China, right? And that the Great Wall (more like a series of walls but w/ever) were laughably inefficient as a (series of) defensive structure(s)?

The post you quoted saying that "numbers don't mean everything" is because the Mongols _routinely_ crushed Empires with far more soldiers than them (Jin, Song, Khwarezm...)


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> LMAO! This post is too funny.


You're an idiot...he made very good points....



heavy_rasengan said:


> You and others are stating that American armies are superior to China when the United States spends over 500 billion on military annually and China spends only around 59 billion. Germany also outspended their opponents prior to WWII and their superior technology raped in the beginning but the playing field was becoming even because wartime production > peacetime production.


Your point being? Germany also could've won WWII if it hadn't been for some very stupid decisions. It came close to beating Britain, and then it switched it's tactics. It lost in Russia because of sheer stupidity and horrible supply lines. And, last but not least, it lost in the end because America entered the war and it couldn't resist the combined pressure of both American _and_ Russia.

The difference with Germany also being that it's technological gap wasn't as large as the one the US has over China. We have over a twenty year gap with them in the air. They have a shitty navy which we could literally wipe out in very little time, and their land-based army is so antiquated that numbers is literally the largest thing going for it, not technology.



heavy_rasengan said:


> The United States will just eat its economy away while China could sustain a large budget.


As will China. A large part of China's economy revolves around the US. Fighting us means losing one of their biggest suppliers, while the US can just turn to other countries for what it needs, or, even better, just build it itself as it did before, it's not as if we don't have the capabilities and don't need the jobs.

You _do_ know that China is the largest importer of raw goods because it doesn't have very many natural resources, while the US is a very large importer of raw goods, right? We supply them with a _lot_ of what they use to build and base their economy off of...



heavy_rasengan said:


> China would be the only country to be able to put up a good fight.


-Points at Russia-



heavy_rasengan said:


> The Americans would have the advantage in the beginning but Chinas manpower an


In the air, we could easily achieve a 3:1 kill-ratio, by USAF projections, it would likely be higher and around 6-8:1 kill ratio with our most advanced aircraft. On ground, we could easily pull off at _least_ a 3:1 kill ratio with our superior weaponry.

Now, the PLA's total personnel is ~3.4 million. Ours is ~1.8 million. This is in all branches of both sides, btw. We have at least, but most likely over a 3:1 kill ratio over them in total. We could wipe out all of their army pretty easily.....with 2 million extra kills to spare.....



heavy_rasengan said:


> economy would hold off better the United States.


After crippling it's own economy by making its single largest buyer its enemy, China will have a dead economy...



heavy_rasengan said:


> Its ludicrous to think that China will just sit there with shitty technology and get ass raped,


Except, you ninny, that technology doesn't work like that. Technology takes _years_ to develop. The B-2 entered testing in the late 80s and didn't enter actual service until the late 90s. If they do what you are saying, then they will be doing the equivalent of going out in a machine that is barely half-done. The Nazis did this with quite a few of their machines, and it didn't work out very well for them.



heavy_rasengan said:


> If China is lacking military technology they will obtain it throughout the course of war unless of course the United States does a swift victory which i doubt.


You can't close a 20 year technological gap through sheer will power and wishing. Technology is built upon previous technology. Do you not listen? Not to mention that this will be a China being raped by the US on all fronts, it will have to focus more on making tanks and other weaponry to defend itself than to research.

The US has over a 20 year gap. _Maybe_ by 2020, the PLA will be where the US military is _now_, and by then we'll still be ahead of them becausewe will continue to invest in research and weaponry instead of simply sitting back and doing nothing.

Besides, what is to make you think that the US would stop researching weapons itself? During peace time we start replacing the most advanced aircraft _ever_ built after about 10 years in service, what do you think will happen during war time when even more money goes into research and military spending??


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Watchman said:


> *snip*blah-blah-blah. yadda-yadda-yadda. rant-rant-rant*snip*


Ahhh, Watchman, how are you doing you glorious bastard??

So, what is your opinion on the matter?


----------



## Watchman (Apr 26, 2010)

I honestly don't know enough about current militaries to make a reasonable comment on this topic. 

As far as my limited knowledge goes, in a conventional war Russia or China could give the USA a hell of a fight, but would lose.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Watchman said:


> As far as my limited knowledge goes, in a conventional war Russia or China could give the USA a hell of a fight, *but would lose*.



Wise you are, good sir


----------



## Captain Smoker (Apr 26, 2010)

With nukes out of the picture, America would crush anyone. Yes, against superpowers we would lose millions, but they would lose much more, and eventually we would conquer them. America has the most powerful force in history.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Captain Smoker said:


> With nukes out of the picture, America would crush anyone. Yes, against superpowers we would lose millions, but they would lose much more, and eventually we would conquer them. America has the most powerful force in history.



Agreed.

Also, if it is solely a defensive war then the numbers would be much smaller for the United States as we have capabilities to defend from any sizeable invasion. Period. At best they would be able to land small strike forces that would quickly and harshly be dealt with by a larger home-field presence.


----------



## dream (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Also, if it is solely a defensive war then the numbers would be much smaller for the United States as we have capabilities to defend from any sizeable invasion. Period. At best they would be able to land small strike forces that would quickly and harshly be dealt with by a larger home-field presence.



Being surrounded by two oceans sure is awesome.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Dai Dreamer said:


> Being surrounded by two oceans sure is awesome.



Being on your own continent, surrounded by two oceans, with no land routes or small waterways, and being the only military power worth a shit is even better


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 26, 2010)

Is it US militray vs the entire country? I could see China and India giving us problems if they get enough guns and the will to fight via sheer numbers.

Otherwise we just nuke everyone. Russia would be a tie.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Except that a lot of land weaponry in China is obsolete. Not by a few years, but by a few decades.
> 
> Having numbers doesn't mean much if your enemy can still run circles around you, tank nearly everything you throw at it, and then one-shot everything you have in return.


actually let's compare the military force of each country
tanks 


as you can see the chinese have a faster, cheaper, with better armor, and weapons of more caliber




> Lolwhat? Are we talking about the country that could produce _entire ships_ over a few days (42) in WWII?


the past, bor, the past




> Mind pointing out where it points that out? I've read through some of it and most of it talk about airbases and a possible Taiwan scenario.






> Your point? That much I already knew. I was just pointing out the cost. An F-117 was 3 times cheaper than an F-22.


thank you







> Except that there is currently no _need_ to build more F-22s. We are already getting ready to build 6th Gen aircraft that are more advanced than current 5th Gen one, as you've posted. _No_ country in the world except the US currently has 5th Gen aircraft in service. China is developing, Russia has yet to introduce it into service. Why overproduce when there is currently no need to?


I think you misinterpret the news, that was boeing asking the white house to construct the 6th generations because the F-35, sucks when you compare how much you invest vs how much you get (remember boeing is the natural enemy of lockhead martin and they want the contract)



> The B-2 was introduce in '97. It is already being replaced. The F-22 was introduced in '05. How much longer do you think it'll last before its replaced with better technology? The PAK-50 enters service in 2013 and it will take about _40 years_ to deliver all the promised units, by which it will be obsolete most likely. And the J-XX won't enter service until 2020.


2030, that is what the congress told to boeing to wait, anyways the chinese say that they will introduce it before the '20 



> Yet we have the largest airforce in the world. We have the most advanced airforce in the world. From choppers to aircraft, they hold the best.


sir you think technology can win a war let me remind you that in serbia 2 F-117 were detected and shot down using a..... 1950 radar :urrh


> Way to just kill yourself.... So, while the rest of the world is trying to catch up and build 5th Gen aircraft, we are already planning to build 6th Gen aircraft. How far behind we are indeed....


no they will be introduce in 2030




> If we would have killed civilians indiscriminately we wouldn't have lost. What do you want? Massacres of innocent in the name of victory? We were fighting in Vietnam against an enemy who hid all too often within the civilians, as we are now. It is impossible to tell enemy from neutral in such a situation.


no what happen is that we went and defended the side which everyday people in Vietnam were tired of and we are doing the same in Afghanistan 



> Stealthy, yes. But how stealthy? The F-22's normal radar cross-section has been concerned to that of a small bird or bumble-bee IIRC.


if the Russian are capable of delivering a AI into the airplane stealth wouldn't be a problem, also in a conflict with china over taiwan the F-22 raptor will be of little use since the closer bases (for it to fly off) will be shut down by china with their MRBM


*will update later when i get home*


----------



## Kurou (Apr 26, 2010)




----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Is it US militray vs the entire country? I could see China and India giving us problems if they get enough guns and the will to fight via sheer numbers.


Small arms fire do nothing to tanks. 



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> actually let's compare the military force of each country
> tanks
> 
> 
> as you can see the chinese have a faster, cheaper, with better armor, and weapons of more caliber



From the same wiki article:


> Although not expected to be acquired in large numbers due to its high cost



And wow...Wiki has _such_ inconsistent figures on the price...

They only have 500 of those altogether...and they are _still_ no match for an Apache helicopter.... American ingenuity is a great thing, eh? Make good, efficient, and powerful tanks.

The cannon is also a nonfactor as we have Abrams that can boast up to 120mm guns, and Paladins that come with 155mm guns and are extremely accurate.

And our Abrahms also have better range. The 105mm Gun can go up to 3km, the 120mm gun can go even further. And:


> In addition to this, the new XM1111 (Mid-Range-Munition Kinetic Energy) is also in development. Essentially a cannon-fired guided round, it has a range of roughly 12 km and uses a KE warhead which is rocket assisted in its final phase of flight.





Blackfeather Dragon said:


> the past, bor, the past


Exactly, now we have even better technology and more advanced methods of building, so it will only be faster.




Blackfeather Dragon said:


> I think you misinterpret the news, that was boeing asking the white house to construct the 6th generations because the F-35, sucks when you compare how much you invest vs how much you get (remember boeing is the natural enemy of lockhead martin and they want the contract)



No, Boeing told them that because Lockheed Martin won the contract. Boeing's design, the X-32, _lost_ to the F-35. The two are bitter competitors for military contracts, its not that surprising actually. The reason why the F-35 is weak is because not too many have been rolled off yet and has yet to be introduced into the military. 

By and by, the F-35 is a fair plane, even if it isn't going to break any records, but a damn competent and reliant one too. It is cheap, reliable, and agile, and while not the highest preforming aircraft, it is still good enough to be usable in large numbers for a difference. Unlike most aircraft today, it has stealth features and other nice additions that will allow it more survivability than the common mainstay fighter of many other countries.

Boeing going against the contract is common sense, doesn't say much about the aircraft.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> 2030, that is what the congress told to boeing to wait, anyways the chinese say that they will introduce it before the '20


Great, so the Chinese will introduce a plane that will _maybe_ be up to standards with the F-22 about 15 years after we do. How far behind we are indeed...

While they are busy doing that, we are busy building a 6th Gen aircraft.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> sir you think technology can win a war let me remind you that in serbia 2 F-117 were detected and shot down using a..... 1950 radar :urrh


F-117 also had a much larger radar signature than the F-22s and B-2s, were more vulnerable for longer periods of time, and used more antiquated technology that doesn't hold a candle to what those two planes have.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no they will be introduce in 2030


Keyword: _planning_. The rest of the world is still trying to catch up to us in terms of 5th Gen aircraft and we are already trying to develop 6th Gen aircraft. That should tell you quite a bit about our technological level...



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no what happen is that we went and defended the side which everyday people in Vietnam were tired of and we are doing the same in Afghanistan


We defended the side that was democratic. Read a history book: not everyone in Vietnam was tired of it, it was just that part of the country was democratic and the other part was democratic. We defended the democratic side. 



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> if the Russian are capable of delivering a AI into the airplane stealth wouldn't be a problem, also in a conflict with china over taiwan the F-22 raptor will be of little use since the closer bases (for it to fly off) will be shut down by china with their MRBM


Lolwhat? The AI is solely for radar, and nobody even knows how it'll work, so...

And _why_ do you keep bringing up Taiwan? We _are not_ trying to defend Taiwan. We are trying to defend the _Continental United States_, Taiwan is a non-factor.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 26, 2010)

Out of curiosity, what prevents a would-be foreign power wanting to invade the US from simply crushing Mexico and/or Canada like bugs and then launching a north/south pincer attack? Neither Mexico nor Canada are what I would call significant obstacles - hell even the French could take Mexico over in short order if they felt like it...

The US being easily defended relies entirely on the nations to its south and north NOT being steamrolled like grapefruits by a bigger, badder guy. The moment that happens, things get ugly. because the US forces... well... aren't used to being the defending guys.

And then we get Fallout.  And hopefully Liberty Prime.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> LMAO! This post is too funny. ]


what's funny is every time you reacted like this in the OBD..its right before you talked out of your reatr end

I thought you had passed that heavy 


heavy_rasengan said:


> L
> 
> That is exactly why the United States will get buttfucked when trying to sustain a long term war. You and others are stating that American armies are superior to China when the United States spends over 500 billion on military annually and China spends only around 59 billion. Germany also outspended their opponents prior to WWII and their superior technology raped in the beginning but the playing field was becoming even because wartime production > peacetime production. The United States will just eat its economy away while China could sustain a large budget.



so basically what happened in world war two..didn;t happen then that'sright?

the Us was ass up in a depression...and we still out produced pretty much every other nation in the war minus Russia...

comparing Germany's economy and industry to the US is really silly..they don't compare and haven't since pre-ww1 


heavy_rasengan said:


> L
> China would be the only country to be able to put up a good fight. The Americans would have the advantage in the beginning but Chinas manpower and economy would hold off better the United States. Its ludicrous to think that China will just sit there with shitty technology and get ass raped, there are enough precedents to maintain that this does not happen when two large powers go at it. If China is lacking military technology they will obtain it throughout the course of war unless of course the United States does a swift victory which i doubt.



if the US tossed any human rights to the winds...as we should be assuminf due to battledome rules

then no...China wont be putting up a good fight not when we'll be smashing them with VX gas...(oh and by the way the only countrty that has this is and in any decent numbers be russia) a myriad of other chemical weapons

bombing the shitr outof their population centers

China *will* not be closing the gap between us in a war when their simply..going to be starving..and bankrupt due to loosing the US as an associate .which makes up for most of its ecnomic profits..most of their food and grain comes from America the rest from Uraguay Argentina Chila and brazil..nations that have historically fallen in line with the US when they toss off a blockade

yeah Chinas fucked

also for those saying..China can't be conquered

Imperial japan/ the British East India company/imperial UK/germany/holland/ and Ghengis khan would like to have words with you


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Gain said:


> Canada             .


No.



Lucifeller said:


> Out of curiosity, what prevents a would-be foreign power wanting to invade the US from simply crushing Mexico and/or Canada like bugs and then launching a north/south pincer attack? Neither Mexico nor Canada are what I would call significant obstacles - hell even the French could take Mexico over in short order if they felt like it...


Because if national security were at risk, the US would defend the both of them as well.

And yes, of course the French could take over Mexico. It's only a first world nation with lots of money and a modern military, versus a third world country like Mexico.......



Lucifeller said:


> The US being easily defended relies entirely on the nations to its south and north NOT being steamrolled like grapefruits by a bigger, badder guy. The moment that happens, things get ugly. because the US forces... well... aren't used to being the defending guys.


We defended against the Brit and won in 1812.... Britain that had a _much_ more powerful military and navy than we did.

Also, even if they could invade, which they can't, we would still destroy them if we had to defend.... Defending is easier than attacking. We have defensive fortifications and SAMs and whatnot to make our lives easier on top of everything else.



Lucifeller said:


> And then we get Fallout.  And hopefully Liberty Prime.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 26, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Out of curiosity, what prevents a would-be foreign power wanting to invade the US from simply crushing Mexico and/or Canada like bugs and then launching a north/south pincer attack? Neither Mexico nor Canada are what I would call significant obstacles - hell even the French could take Mexico over in short order if they felt like it...
> 
> The US being easily defended relies entirely on the nations to its south and north NOT being steamrolled like grapefruits by a bigger, badder guy. The moment that happens, things get ugly. because the US forces... well... aren't used to being the defending guys.
> 
> And then we get Fallout.  And hopefully Liberty Prime.



Do you honestly think the USA would stand back and watch if another nation tried to conquer Mexico or Canada (neither of which are lightweights)?

I mean, good grief, the Monroe Doctrine was formulated at a time when the USA was the third or fourth most powerful nation in the Western Hemisphere and they still didn't hesitate to tell the likes of the British Empire "Bring it if you dare" - nowadays, when the US is undoubtedly the strongest nation in the world, they are NOT going to let any other nation mess around in their backyard.

Furthermore, defending a nation is always easier than attacking - secure supply lines, a populace (usually) motivated to help you, etc.

All in all, it would make more sense for Russia/China whatever to attack America directly. 

If they attacked and tried to conquer Canada/Mexico, the USA would be all over them _anyway_ and they'd have the disadvantage of being bogged down in a country that, whilst certainly not a global powerhouse, is capable of being a real fucking pain in the ass when you have to concentrate on the USA.

And even if they did conquer Canada and Mexico and the USA just sat back and watched, then what? Do you think it would be _easy_ to conquer the US? To drive through Texas or California from the south when the USA's in a state of war?

To put it another way, imagine, say, Britain and Japan attacking Russia from the East and West - do you think Russia would not be able to beat off those two inferior military powers on its home ground?

EDIT:

War of 1812 was a draw at best, you foul Yank!


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> *Snip* Smart Stuff *Snip*



 GODDAMN Watchdog, a bit cruel aren't we?

EDIT: Wow, Watchman too 

Also, just wanted to note:


The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Uraguay Argentina Chila and brazil..nations that have historically fallen in line with the US when they toss off a blockade


And if not, they could always be conquered within two weeks.

EDIT: Nahhh, we won. All the defensive side has to do is survive, and we did.  US>>>>>>>>>GB


----------



## Han Solo (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> We defended against the Brit and won in 1812.... Britain that had a _much_ more powerful military and navy than we did.



True to a point, but most of Britain's forces were occupied with France.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 26, 2010)

> Furthermore, defending a nation is always easier than attacking - secure supply lines, a populace (usually) motivated to help you, etc.



I would agree with you, except for one thing. When was the last time the US had to defend against a very large scale attack from a comparable superpower on their home turf?

Two centuries ago? More?

The problem with defending is that if you haven't been doing it often it doesn't come easy at all. The US are formidable at attacking, but in recent history, every time they were in a defensive or otherwise not aggressive stance, they either sucked at it (remember how successful defending against Vietcong attacks was in Vietnam?) or underestimated the enemy badly out of perceived superiority, which led to them taking horrible losses.

Remember Pearl Harbor? Remember the US bigwigs dismissing the enemy threat as irrelevant because they had archaic airplanes, few of them to boot and an overall crappy force that was losing - something which I see a lot of people in this thread also do? Remember how those crappy, outdated airplanes that were clearly inferior to the US forces COMPLETELY DESTROYED the much larger and modern US fleet stationed at PH because 1) the US underestimated their threat level, secure in their OMG SUPERIOR TECH, and 2) they had nothing to lose but their lives, which made them willing to do whatever it took to secure victory?

This is why I'm making a big deal of China's numbers and counting even the common folk. Eastern countries may dislike their rulers, but they historically tend to dislike foreign invaders even more, and with all of China likely backing the regimen up against an US invasion, things would get horribly ugly very fast, regardless of tech levels.

During wars China has often used suicidal attacks to crush enemies under overwhelming numbers, even if it meant terrible losses for them, because they can afford those losses, and their enemies usually can't. And when the number is 3 billion, it tends to be rather onesided when it comes to who wins - I doubt you could bring along enough bullets to kill all Chinese before they simply overrun you, anyway. And that assumes countries around China would allow you to merrily traipse over their territory to launch such an attack, which is not likely given how that entire area hates the US with a passion nowadays, except maybe Taiwan.


----------



## RockpiRate (Apr 26, 2010)

jedijohn said:


> Is there any country the United States couldn't defeat one-on-one?
> I don't think so.


 yeaa man..the answer is China


----------



## Nihilistic (Apr 26, 2010)

The EU needs to get its shit together and create something similar to the way US is managed. And, of course, get some politicians with balls. Then we'll see


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Out of curiosity, what prevents a would-be foreign power wanting to invade the US from simply crushing Mexico and/or Canada like bugs and then launching a north/south pincer attack? Neither Mexico nor Canada are what I would call significant obstacles - hell even the French could take Mexico over in short order if they felt like it...
> 
> The US being easily defended relies entirely on the nations to its south and north NOT being steamrolled like grapefruits by a bigger, badder guy. The moment that happens, things get ugly. because the US forces... well... aren't used to being the defending guys.
> 
> And then we get Fallout.  And hopefully Liberty Prime.



this happened in our history to the us twice...once during the revolutionary war when England sent troops from the south...and invaded from the north...with a number of ships that was one of the largest invasion forces in Brittan History..in fact I'm pretty sure the total number of ships sent against new York was rivaled only by D-day

some thirty two thousand troops and another in number from the south

we all know how that ended

during the war of eighteen twelve..the US was cut in half..by forces invading From Canada..and they tried from the south

it blew up in their face..they had to fight an armed civilian populace and lunatics like Andrew Jackson..who's hatred for the British had him pulling all sorts of War crimes against British troops as he sorta stomped his way down south to new Orleans

political morale buckled and England singed a peace treaty and backed off..it tends to be physiologically scarring to do that facing an enemy where every one..who's old enough to shoot..will be shooting at you..and can under the law..own a gun or two..or three 

also during the first or second French empires..they did curbstomp the piss out of Mexico...as a prelude to invading the US

they decided to back the fuck off  when they Realized they had trouble holding meijico..much less anything else



Nihilistic said:


> The EU needs to get its shit together and create something similar to the way US is managed. And, of course, get some politicians with balls. Then we'll see



it would be both very very awesome..and win..to watch England France and Germany grow their balls back..and start letting foos know who's boss like they did..from the fourteen hundred right up until ww1 when the US supplanted them

and also..a very fucking scary..thought..


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Han Solo said:


> True to a point, but most of Britain's forces were occupied with France.


But we still had almost no military and almost no navy. So it is still impressive. We beat a world power about twenty years after being formed. USA FTW!!!!!



Lucifeller said:


> I would agree with you, except for one thing. When was the last time the US had to defend against a very large scale attack from a comparable superpower on their home turf?


And?? Does that mean it is impossible? No. War is not like a manga or anime. We don't necesserily need feats, because we already know capabilities to their fullest.



Lucifeller said:


> The problem with defending is that if you haven't been doing it often it doesn't come easy at all. The US are formidable at attacking, but in recent history, every time they were in a defensive or otherwise not aggressive stance, they either sucked at it (remember how successful defending against Vietcong attacks was in Vietnam?) or underestimated the enemy badly out of perceived superiority, which led to them taking horrible losses.


Except that in Vietnam we weren't fighting a defensive as we would on our home soil. In the US _we_ have the homefield advantage and know the turf. In the US our fortifications are made _specifically_ to conform to our military and the enemy can't do as the Vietcong did in Vietnam.

And, again, you seem to be ignoring the fact the majority of the Vietcong hid in their own forests in which they had already set traps and dug that huge array of tunnels that were such a pain in the ass. And, moreover, they hid amongst civilians and crowds and were, a lot of the time, undiscernable from normal civies until they pulled their guns out.

You are comparing two _very_ different and irrelevent scenarios. Especially since Vietnam was more of an offensive war than a defensive one.



Lucifeller said:


> Remember Pearl Harbor? Remember the US bigwigs dismissing the enemy threat as irrelevant because they had archaic airplanes,


Byahahaha, the Zero was not archaic. The Zero outpreformed everything the US Navy could come up with for quite a while. It was the Zero that forced the Hellcat into production. It was actually the other way around.





> The Grumman F4F Wildcat was an American carrier-based fighter aircraft that began service with both the United States Navy and the British Royal Navy (as the Martlet) in 1940. Although first used in combat by the British in Europe, the Wildcat was the only United States Navy or Marine fighter in World War II 1941–42 in the Pacific Theater besides the brief appearance of the F2A Buffalo. With a top speed of 318 mph (512 km/h), the Wildcat was outperformed by the more nimble 331 mph (533 km/h) Mitsubishi Zero, but its ruggedness and tactics such as the Thach Weave resulted in an air combat kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war.[1]
> 
> Lessons learned from the Wildcat were applied to the faster F6F Hellcat which could outperform the Zero on its own terms. The FM Wildcat continued to be built by General Motors throughout the remainder of the war to serve on escort carriers, where larger and heavier fighters could not be used



Lololololol.



Lucifeller said:


> Remember how those crappy, outdated airplanes that were clearly inferior to the US forces COMPLETELY DESTROYED the much larger and modern US fleet stationed at PH


You seem to be forgetting that aircraft>>>>>>ships. Forever and always. WWII is the reason that Battleships no longer exist, because aircraft proved them to be so shitty in comparison to a good carrier. Which is why the modern US Navy is based _solely_ around Supercarriers, carrier, and aircraft.



Lucifeller said:


> the US underestimated their threat level, secure in their OMG SUPERIOR TECH


Japanese Zero>>>>>>>>>>>Naval Aircraft of US at the time.



Lucifeller said:


> and 2) they had nothing to lose but their lives, which made them willing to do whatever it took to secure victory?


Kamikaze didn't become a fad in the Japanese empire until later in the war..... _Much_ later....



Lucifeller said:


> This is why I'm making a big deal of China's numbers and counting even the common folk. Eastern countries may dislike their rulers, but they historically tend to dislike foreign invaders even more, and with all of China likely backing the regimen up against an US invasion, things would get horribly ugly very fast, regardless of tech levels.


Tech>>>>>>>>>Population. If the gap is big enough, tech will destroy populations in no time. A 20+ year gap seems large enough to me...



Lucifeller said:


> And when the number is 3 *billion*, it tends to be rather onesided when it comes to who wins


Three _what_?? Lol, you are soooo offf.



Lucifeller said:


> I doubt you could bring along enough bullets to kill all Chinese before they simply overrun you, anyway.


Somebody needs to learn about logistics...



Lucifeller said:


> And that assumes countries around China would allow you to merrily traipse over their territory to launch such an attac


They wouldn't need to let us do it. We'd do it anyway.



Lucifeller said:


> which is not likely given how that entire area hates the US with a passion nowadays, except maybe Taiwan.


And they also know that messing with the US equates to death, even without nukes.



RockpiRate said:


> yeaa man..the answer is China


Not really.....



Nihilistic said:


> The EU needs to get its shit together and create something similar to the way US is managed. And, of course, get some politicians with balls. Then we'll see



A British Teddy Roosevelt would kick a country's ass just by looking at it on a map


----------



## Watchman (Apr 26, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> I would agree with you, except for one thing. When was the last time the US had to defend against a very large scale attack from a comparable superpower on their home turf?
> 
> Two centuries ago? More?



There are no superpowers at the moment militarily comparable to the USA. Russia and China come closest, but even then, in terms of navy and airforce they are hilariously outclassed.



> The problem with defending is that if you haven't been doing it often it doesn't come easy at all. The US are formidable at attacking, but in recent history, every time they were in a defensive or otherwise not aggressive stance, they either sucked at it (remember how successful defending against Vietcong attacks was in Vietnam?)



There's a difference between taking a defensive position in the country of your opponents on the other side of the world from you and holding defensive positions in your own country.



> or underestimated the enemy badly out of perceived superiority, which led to them taking horrible losses.



Yes, America underestimated the Vietcong (and the insurgents in Iraq), because assymetrical warfare is still a developing field. The underestimated Japan in WW2 because Japan was basically on par with Italy - nobody expects Italy to start a war against a massively superior power. 

Do you honestly think America would underestimate someone a rank or two below them on the "global power" scale to the same degree as they did the insurgents? If anything, we'd see an overestimation - if the sons-of-bitches are confident enough to attack American soil, then they're going to get everything chucked at them.



> Remember Pearl Harbor? Remember the US bigwigs dismissing the enemy threat as irrelevant because they had archaic airplanes, few of them to boot and an overall crappy force that was losing - something which I see a lot of people in this thread also do? Remember how those crappy, outdated airplanes that were clearly inferior to the US forces COMPLETELY DESTROYED the much larger and modern US fleet stationed at PH because 1) the US underestimated their threat level, secure in their OMG SUPERIOR TECH, and 2) they had nothing to lose but their lives, which made them willing to do whatever it took to secure victory?



They didn't completely destroy it, they actually missed out key parts such as the submarine headquarters, and the aircraft carriers they'd been sent to destroy.

And as we saw, that one defeat led to the USA taking off the kid gloves and beating Japan across the Pacific. Let's say your hypothetical situation takes place - Russia nabs Canada and then, say, invades Alaska and beats the USA there and drives them out.

USA goes srs-mode, and Russia's left horrifically overstretched, having taken control of the second largest nation in the world and a sizeable chunk of the third, whilst the USA is out for blood and is going to ensure it beats Russia to the point of unconditional surrender.



> This is why I'm making a big deal of China's numbers and counting even the common folk. Eastern countries may dislike their rulers, but they historically tend to dislike foreign invaders even more, and with all of China likely backing the regimen up against an US invasion, things would get horribly ugly very fast, regardless of tech levels.



And the same doesn't apply for American citizens (who with the Second Amendment would be a right fucking pain for any occupier to deal with) because?

And a bloodlusted America, as is the default position of a participant in an OBD thread, wouldn't bother occupying Chinese cities, and would probably just wipe them off the map.



> During wars China has often used suicidal attacks to crush enemies under overwhelming numbers, even if it meant terrible losses for them, because they can afford those losses, and their enemies usually can't. And when the number is 3 billion



Where on earth did you get that number from? China comprises almost 50% of the planet now?



> it tends to be rather onesided when it comes to who wins - I doubt you could bring along enough bullets to kill all Chinese before they simply overrun you, anyway.



Which might hold water if somehow China arms its entire population, ships it onto American soil without any problems, manages to supply such an unbelievably huge force, and wait, who's working the factories back home to produce weapons? Who's producing food? Who's keeping the economy running? (and thus we see the bad side of TOTAL POPULATION CONSCRIPTION)

But let's take China's actual "active + reserve military" population of roughly 4 and a half million compared to the American active + reserve military of slightly less than 3 million. Even if the entire Chinese Military got shipped over and had no supply problems, they don't have anywhere near the numbers to just HUMAN WAVE their way over everything.



> And that assumes countries around China would allow you to merrily traipse over their territory to launch such an attack, which is not likely given how that entire area hates the US with a passion nowadays, except maybe Taiwan.



Bloodlusted USA doesn't commit large land forces until it wipes out opposition from the skies, if at that.



Nihilistic said:


> The EU needs to get its shit together and create something similar to the way US is managed. And, of course, get some politicians with balls. Then we'll see



HAHAHAHA! If only...


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

I'll just toss this out here when bringing up the middle east..and the vietnam war

1, there wherre about fifty thousand or so us dead maybe a bit more...there where over a million dead viet cong...

2, Iraq and afganistans governments fell within what two weeks? when we engage terrorist cells how many of them die for every one of ours?

3, operation Desert storm showed exactly what numbers mean..against superior technology..Saddam had thelargest military in the world at that point..or one of the largest and the most tanks...it was pwned..

4, Superior numbers mean jack shit against superior tactics or technology...Cortez and the other conquiestadors faced a hundred and twenty five million angry natives with only small numbers joining their sides.and in many cases themselves only numbering in the dozens..maybe hundreds.within twenty years they toppled every single major empire in the Americas..and wiped out eighty percent of the native population or more (they knew enough to make use of their diseases as well as technology )

Ghengis khan routinely humiliated Chinas superior numbers..so did England to the point where they played with Chinese  lives and states like marionetes dancing..for their every whims...within a century or so..from the sixten hundred to the seventeen hundred..(or was it it seventeen to eighteen) The netherlands Holland Germany England and to a lesser extent spain and the US (much later) had carved out most of Asia and those that wheren;t colonies where puppet governments..\

Japan held entire chunks of China and korea hostage during the second world war and with out..the US flattening them and the USSr playing puppet regimes with mao...Japan likely would of held onto those holdings indefinately..superior numbers meant very little when the Japanese started slaughtering people hole sale...and fear kept them in line

numbers mean very little when the tech gap is dramatic this has been proven time and time again


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> *Snip*





Watchman said:


> *Snip*



A good team are we three


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

I'm going to give this to china because sheer pure numbers also to pau. you said that why i keep bringing up taiwan, well besides this is a hypotetical fight in which real war could occur it shows why the F-22 due to it's small numbers wouldn't make a difference



> From the same wiki article:
> 
> Quote:
> Although not expected to be acquired in large numbers due to its high cost
> ...


sorry to bother you  but i read the article twice and I couldn't find what they say that mind if you can post it like tell me in which part is it.

anyways the tank uses also a standard 125mm autoloader cannon here the stats


> Designation            2A46M-2
> Internal designation   D-81TM-2
> Type                   Smoothbore
> Caliber                125 mm
> ...


as you can see this baby has a max. range of 80 kil. 
also the type 99MK uses a 155 MM itself



> No, Boeing told them that because Lockheed Martin won the contract. Boeing's design, the X-32, lost to the F-35. The two are bitter competitors for military contracts, its not that surprising actually. The reason why the F-35 is weak is because not too many have been rolled off yet and has yet to be introduced into the military.
> 
> By and by, the F-35 is a fair plane, even if it isn't going to break any records, but a damn competent and reliant one too. It is *cheap,* reliable, and agile, and while not the highest preforming aircraft, it is still good enough to be usable in large numbers for a difference. Unlike most aircraft today, it has stealth features and other nice additions that will allow it more survivability than the common mainstay fighter of many other countries.
> 
> Boeing going against the contract is common sense, doesn't say much about the aircraft.


I can agree with everything except that is cheap you have to remember that the prices skyrocketted 


> Great, so the Chinese will introduce a plane that will maybe be up to standards with the F-22 about 15 years after we do. How far behind we are indeed...
> 
> While they are busy doing that, we are busy building a 6th Gen aircraft.


sir you undertimate numbers, for 2030 the congress will pay for the plane we haven't even start to develop one yet



> We defended the side that was democratic. Read a history book: not everyone in Vietnam was tired of it, it was just that part of the country was democratic and the other part was democratic. We defended the democratic side.


that is the problem we went and defend a corruct dique "democratic" goverment, if people don't like their goverment and want to try something new let them be, if what they come up with they don't like thy will scramble all up again make a new one

now for my second comparation of the day I will compare the mortars after all a good army has to counter the enemy A.V.  

the chinese vs the american 
(yes I'm using the american latest version)
as you can see the chinese have a mortar that is lighter, has the same caliber, it is made to destroy reactive armoured vehicle, it has better ammunition at it's disposition

for disclimer the M120 is used by the chinese *police* corps  



for the third comparation of the day I will study the size of both armies 
the american army has a size of (remember that we are at war time, so this should be our numbers at war time)
 in the navy 332,000 personnel+
in the army 539,675 Active personnel +
557,375 Reserve personnel
in the air force 327,452 active personnel+
115,300 reserve personnel+
106,700 air guard personnel= 1,679,702
vs
Active personnel approximately 3,440,000 (in the country)+Reserve personnel 1,200,000 + deployed personal 7,540,000(peace time) in war time(draft) we would have to take in account the Available for 
military service 654,229,201 males, age 16?49 (2009 est.),
429,058,000 females, age 16?49 (2009 est.) 

for a total of, i don't going to bother but you get the idea


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> I'm going to give this to china because sheer pure numbers also to pau.


Numbers don't mean much if you're being slaughtered for more than you have...



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> sorry to bother you but i read the article twice and I couldn't find what they say that mind if you can post it like tell me in which part is it.


First of all, I can't even understand your question. Secondly, I just summarized it.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> you said that why i keep bringing up taiwan, well besides this is a hypotetical fight in which real war could occur it shows why the F-22 due to it's small numbers wouldn't make a difference


If they were all defending the US mainland, from the mainland, from one front, yes, they would make a _huge_ different.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> anyways the tank uses also a standard 125mm autoloader cannon here the stats
> as you can see this baby has a max. range of 80 kil.


That is _if_ the tank has the capabilities to shoot that long a range. It takes more than a massive cannon to shoot long ranges. And that tank's profile doesn't say anything close to 80km.....



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> also the type 99MK uses a 155 MM itself


As can the Paladin with extreme accuracy.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> I can agree with everything except that is cheap you have to remember that the prices skyrocketted


Relatively cheap for an aircraft that provides what it has.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> sir you undertimate numbers, for 2030 the congress will pay for the plane we haven't even start to develop one yet


No, 2030 would be the year it is introduced into the military. And a normal, next-gen aircraft might spend 10+ years in development easily.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> that is the problem we went and defend a corruct dique "democratic" goverment, if people don't like their goverment and want to try something new let them be, if what they come up with they don't like thy will scramble all up again make a new one


No, only _some_ people didn't like the government. It didn't help that 



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> the chinese vs the american
> (yes I'm using the american latest version)
> as you can see the chinese have a mortar that is lighter, has the same caliber, it is made to destroy reactive armoured vehicle, it has better ammunition at it's disposition


You're comparing a mortar....to an anti-tank recoiless gun.... Wow, I can't stop laughing at you. Way to compare two _vastly_ different weapons.. Are you going to compare a pistol to a sniper rifle now?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> You're an idiot...he made very good points....



No, your obviously the idiot with your American wanking in every thread about America. Its actually really pathetic to see. 




> Your point being? *Germany also could've won WWII if it hadn't been for some very stupid decisions*. It came close to beating Britain, and then it switched it's tactics. It lost in Russia because of sheer stupidity and horrible supply lines. And, last but not least, it lost in the end because America entered the war and it couldn't resist the combined pressure of both American _and_ Russia.
> 
> The difference with Germany also being that it's technological gap wasn't as large as the one the US has over China. We have over a twenty year gap with them in the air. They have a shitty navy which we could literally wipe out in very little time, and their land-based army is so antiquated that numbers is literally the largest thing going for it, not technology.



For someone who claims to be well educated in these matters, that bolded statement was incredibly idiotic. Good decisions or bad decisions, they would not have defeated Russia, United States and Britain. Too bad that the technological gap does not need 20 years to fill. That gap exists because of the difference of the budgets, China can easily maintain that technology and produce it at must faster rate if they raise their defense budget. What the fuck makes you think in a war China will be mass producing T-55s? They are more likely to mass produce type 96s which are less efficient than American tanks but are cost efficient. Also none of that matters if yours countries economy is dead after a year which is what will happen. The United States spends enough money maintaining situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine the spending when faccing a power like China. Their present military spending would lead to their downfall.  




> As will China. A large part of China's economy revolves around the US. Fighting us means losing one of their biggest suppliers, while the US can just turn to other countries for what it needs, or, even better, just build it itself as it did before, it's not as if we don't have the capabilities and don't need the jobs.
> 
> You _do_ know that China is the largest importer of raw goods because it doesn't have very many natural resources, while the US is a very large importer of raw goods, right? We supply them with a _lot_ of what they use to build and base their economy off of...



Actually no, China's dependence isnt something that will effect them vastly in a state of war. I don't know where people get this invisible non existent bullshit from. China has many other countries to turn to and is not in a economic fragile state like the U.S is in. Arguing that China will be broke before U.S in a state of war is just stupid considering the situation of the United States right now. Honestly put your wanking aside here. The American trade deficit with China has exceeded 300 billion for a couple of years now.  



> In the air, we could easily achieve a 3:1 kill-ratio, by USAF projections, it would likely be higher and around 6-8:1 kill ratio with our most advanced aircraft. On ground, we could easily pull off at _least_ a 3:1 kill ratio with our superior weaponry.
> 
> Now, the PLA's total personnel is ~3.4 million. Ours is ~1.8 million. This is in all branches of both sides, btw. We have at least, but most likely over a 3:1 kill ratio over them in total. We could wipe out all of their army pretty easily.....with 2 million extra kills to spare.....



^
LOL, if only the outcome of a war was so easy to determine.

PLA's total personnel is 3.4 million? What about the total available manpower fit for service? Last I checked it was more than 600 million and oh yea China is a Communist country. Lets also not forget that every year more than 22 million people in China reach the age for military service. 



> After crippling it's own economy by making its single largest buyer its enemy, China will have a dead economy...



LOL, oh and of course maintaining a 500 billion dollar defense budget in a already crippled economy going to war with one of the most powerful ccountries in the world will leave your economy in great shape. China losing its largest buyer is not only a double edged sword but it also wont make Chinas economy dead or anything close to it.



> Except, you ninny, that technology doesn't work like that. Technology takes _years_ to develop. The B-2 entered testing in the late 80s and didn't enter actual service until the late 90s. If they do what you are saying, then they will be doing the equivalent of going out in a machine that is barely half-done. The Nazis did this with quite a few of their machines, and it didn't work out very well for them.



No you fool it does work like that because mimicking technology is obviously more fucking efficient than creating it from scratch. Wow, your an idiot. Russian IS's, Allied Shermans, T-34s etc were all built DURING WWII based on previous designs. 



> The US has over a 20 year gap. _Maybe_ by 2020, the PLA will be where the US military is _now_, and by then we'll still be ahead of them becausewe will continue to invest in research and weaponry instead of simply sitting back and doing nothing.



Your intellect of economics is horrible. The United States continuing such a high amount of military spending for that long is suicide, they will obviously lower it down meaning that research will also be lowered while the Chinese raise theirs up. This isnt a game based on pure statistics, you have to consider precedents and other variables during the course of war. No one prior to WWII thought Germany was anything at all until they all got buttfucked.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 26, 2010)

Just responding to this right now:



> PLA's total personnel is 3.4 million? What about the total available manpower fit for service? Last I checked it was more than 600 million and oh yea China is a Communist country. Lets also not forget that every year more than 22 million people in China reach the age for military service.



*No country on Earth can support an army of 600 million people across an ocean. That is ridonkulous.*


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

blackfeather Dragon are you retarded>? how many times have mutliple posters pointed out to you that numbers mean jack shit?

@ lucy, you make a good point with pearl harbor but at the same time..most of the ships damaged in pearl where repaired a week or two later and sent out to battle any ways...so the Japanese didn't "completely destroy" anything really..all they managed to do was buy time

coincidently Isoroku Yamamoto  knew that the brilliant raid at pearl which they desinged..would only post pone the ienvitable...and at best they could hope for..was doing enough damage that they could get six or seven months to make things so bad in the pacific that the Americans would sue for peace...thats what they wanted..a US peace treaty to let them do what they wanted to China and korea

the last thing they wanted was to actually fight America..because both knew that'd end with Japans defeat

it did they ultimately failed at pearl harbour the operation to buy time only pissed the us the fuck off..and drew an isolationist nation that was at the time pretty fed up with Europes bullshit..into a world war

Russia or China doing something similar would only blow up in their faces

@ heavy get your fucking shit straight..if the US ever pulled itself and latin American iout of trade with China it would collapse..and *starve* this isn't something that can be argued.. the fucking Americas..feed china..the two continents are a bread basket

the rest of what you said was badly misinformed crap..but not on that level



heavy_rasengan said:


> Your intellect of economics is horrible. The United States continuing such a high amount of military spending for that long is suicide, they will obviously lower it down meaning that research will also be lowered while the Chinese raise theirs up. This isnt a game based on pure statistics, you have to consider precedents and other variables during the course of war. No one prior to WWII thought Germany was anything at all until they all got buttfucked.



oh for Christs sake that's why a *far* less advanced and industrially efficient US in the middle of one of the worse Depressions in history..and on the back of one of the worse droughts and food shortages of the last thousand years...was able to effectively..out produce...every other nations in the fucking war minus maybe Russia by a factor of five or six...at a time when the US was running on nothing but will power....and empty coffers and promises 

good lord..I mean seriously it got to the point where Some Germany soldiers have recounted stories where they would see the skies darkened by flying Fotresses  and they would unload ammo into them..down a bunch..then twice their number would show up

what was it one SS guy said "our canons would turn red from the heat and strain and the barrels would fall in on themselves...we'd run our guns until ammunition was gone and more would come...we'd take down almost every plane in the skies..and hours later more would come..it was endless"

another said something like "Americans don't fight...you they drop many bombs on you...and when your lying in the rubble..then they send in they're marines"

fucking underestimation of the Us economy out the ass

another Japanese soldier said something like "there is no honor in making war with America..they don't send their armies to you until your cities are flattened beneath their bombs"


----------



## Quelsatron (Apr 26, 2010)

Didn't read the entire thread as I am not a fan of reading seventy posts where half are over twenty paragraphs long, but I'll say this. The US wouldn't be able to defeat any nuclear power, as a country standing on the brink of destruction(since any match in the OBD assumes that all participants are bloodthirsty murderers) would simply deliver a nuclear barrage, getting nuked in response ending with both countries having major cities emptied of life and nothing being in a condition to fight anymore. There's a reason why nuclear weapons are so great in keeping the peace, it's because if everyone can kill everyone noone will kill anyone.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> No, your obviously the idiot with your American wanking in every thread about America. Its actually really pathetic to see.


Lolwhat? I don't wank the US as much as I love it, I'd rather wank Japan.






heavy_rasengan said:


> Good decisions or bad decisions, they would not have defeated Russia, United States and Britain.


No duh? Taking on the three greatest world powers simultaneously would count as something _very_ stupid, don't 'cha think??

As well as that Germany almost killed Britain, almost, but then it switched its tactics and allowed Britain time to rebuild its airforce.

And, as for Russia, better supply lines, lack of the US, and equipment that would have been better fit for the Russian Winter, they could have taken Russia too.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Too bad that the technological gap does not need 20 years to fill. That gap exists because of the difference of the budgets, China can easily maintain that technology and produce it at must faster rate if they raise their defense budget.


And as well as that the US has a _huge_ head start in _all_ of these things. No country outside of the US has yet to build something that can even compare to the F-117 (or at least has been proven to).



heavy_rasengan said:


> What the fuck makes you think in a war China will be mass producing T-55s?


No, you idiot... I was saying that the _majority_ of their _current_ tanks are T-55 based models.



heavy_rasengan said:


> They are more likely to mass produce type 96s which are less efficient than American tanks but are cost efficient.


And can still be killed easily by Abrams and shitted on en-masse by two or three Apaches.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Also none of that matters if yours countries economy is dead after a year which is what will happen.


Oh, like what'll happen to China? Definitely!



heavy_rasengan said:


> The United States spends enough money maintaining situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine the spending when faccing a power like China. Their present military spending would lead to their downfall.


Units we could withdraw at will, btw.....



heavy_rasengan said:


> Actually no, China's dependence isnt something that will effect them vastly in a state of war.


Lolwhat? China imports a shit load of steel, food, and other raw goods from the US. No steel means no tanks, no food means no rations to feed the soldiers and a social uprising by a starving people. 



heavy_rasengan said:


> I don't know where people get this invisible non existent bullshit from. China has many other countries to turn to and is not in a economic fragile state like the U.S is in.


Like? You mean allies of the US? And, btw, this is ignoring that there are few countries in the world that can produce steel and raw goods like the US can. The US has plenty of just about everything _but_ oil as far as natural resources go. Most countries can't say this....



heavy_rasengan said:


> Arguing that China will be broke before U.S in a state of war is just stupid considering the situation of the United States right now. Honestly put your wanking aside here. The American trade deficit with China has exceeded 300 billion for a couple of years now.


So if we beat them in a war, we won't have to pay back the debt. Great. Hell, in the end we'll do what we did with Japan and just end up making surpluss off of them 




heavy_rasengan said:


> LOL, if only the outcome of a war was so easy to determine.


It's called projections....



heavy_rasengan said:


> PLA's total personnel is 3.4 million? What about the total available manpower fit for service? Last I checked it was more than 600 million and oh yea China is a Communist country. Lets also not forget that every year more than 22 million people in China reach the age for military service.


That was active personnel. And what if China is a communist country? What is it going to do? Force _everyone_ into a draft and then have a revolt in its hands because it pissed everyone in the country off? 

Not to mention that drifting these people would leave china in chaos, revolt or not. If you draft most of your work force who is going to produce your food? Who is going to make your tanks and vehicles? _Think_ for a second you dimwit. The majority of China's peoples are still farmers and even then they are forced to import a shit load of food, mainly from the US and its allies. What happens if you get rid of most of your farmers? Where do you get food? How do you build tanks and guns if you have no work force?



heavy_rasengan said:


> No you fool it does work like that because mimicking technology is obviously more fucking efficient than creating it from scratch.


Where are they going to get this tech from, you fool? Tell me that. How they are gonna get examples that tech. How long do you think it takes to reverse engineer something? How hard do you think it is to reverse engineer high tech stuff, and even more so when you don't even have the basis upon which that technology is built??



heavy_rasengan said:


> Wow, your an idiot. Russian IS's, Allied Shermans, T-34s etc were all built DURING WWII based on previous designs.



Design started in 1937


Designed in 1940, 3 years _before_ the US entered the war

And the ISs were a mixture between improvements  and a new model, not entirely an entirely new model....

Who are you calling a fool, child?



heavy_rasengan said:


> Your intellect of economics is horrible. The United States continuing such a high amount of military spending for that long is suicide, they will obviously lower it down meaning that research will also be lowered while the Chinese raise theirs up.


Lolwhat? You do know that the US's cash cow _is_ the military. Just pointing that out. The richest eras of the US have been preceded by large wars in which the US sold weapons to other countries and made a killing..like in WWI and WWII....



heavy_rasengan said:


> This isnt a game based on pure statistics, you have to consider precedents and other variables during the course of war.


I am.


----------



## Sylar (Apr 26, 2010)

So wait the Chinese are Tyranids now? When did this happen?

If I'm not mistaken the US isn't trying to occupy the enemy country. So we just drop enough heavy ordinace to turn the country into a parking lot until we get the white flag. This is bloodlusted. No Geneva convention, no United Nations.

God forbid we bring in chemical weapons...


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Quelsatron said:


> Didn't read the entire thread as I am not a fan of reading seventy posts where half are over twenty paragraphs long, but I'll say this. The US wouldn't be able to defeat any nuclear power, as a country standing on the brink of destruction(since any match in the OBD assumes that all participants are bloodthirsty murderers) would simply deliver a nuclear barrage, getting nuked in response ending with both countries having major cities emptied of life and nothing being in a condition to fight anymore. There's a reason why nuclear weapons are so great in keeping the peace, it's because if everyone can kill everyone noone will kill anyone.



your right..but I think the OP'er banned nukes to factor that in


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> @ lucy, you make a good point with pearl harbor but at the same time..most of the ships damaged in pearl where repaired a week or two later and sent out to battle any ways...so the Japanese didn't "completely destroy" anything really..all they managed to do was buy time


He actually didn't.... Like I said, most of point about aircraft were wrong because the Japanese Zeros were _extremely_ superior to our Hellcats... And a lot of it was misinformed as well....

Oh, and as for the 600-million man army, what Watchman said.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Sylar said:


> So wait the Chinese are Tyranids now? When did this happen?



apparently last night...you didn't get the memo?


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Numbers don't mean much if you're being slaughtered for more than you have...
> 
> ?


 I want you to look at china's number of people avaliable for war time cut in half and tell me that they still not win.



> First of all, I can't even understand your question. Secondly, I just summarized it.


the article say about the number that it won't be deployed in large number, now what is large to and army regulary a fuckload of times bigger than our own in war time?


> If they were all defending the US mainland, from the mainland, from one front, yes, they would make a _huge_ different.


but i'm basing my debate in us going there



> That is _if_ the tank has the capabilities to shoot that long a range. It takes more than a massive cannon to shoot long ranges. And that tank's profile doesn't say anything close to 80km.....


even if the aoutput is just 2 tenth is still better than the abrams



> As can the Paladin with extreme accuracy.


that will be awesome if it wasn't outnumber




> Relatively cheap for an aircraft that provides what it has.


yet becasue of the cost it has become.....




> No, 2030 would be the year it is introduced into the military. And a normal, next-gen aircraft might spend 10+ years in development easily.


hey the F-22 just got introduce in the military, yet analist for the pentagon said it would be of no use against chian if we go there







> You're comparing a mortar....to an anti-tank recoiless gun.... Wow, I can't stop laughing at you. Way to compare two _vastly_ different weapons.. Are you going to compare a pistol to a sniper rifle now


seems like you didn't read my whole post


The Immortal WatchDog said:


> blackfeather Dragon are you retarded>? how many times have mutliple posters pointed out to you that numbers mean jack shit?
> 
> @ lucy, you make a good point with pearl harbor but at the same time..most of the ships damaged in pearl where repaired a week or two later and sent out to battle any ways...so the Japanese didn't "completely destroy" anything really..all they managed to do was buy time
> 
> ...


firstable peasr harbor was made by ajapan in crisis with inferior tech. china is not exactly in crisis right now more like the opposite, second pear harbol was badly done like a music that starts good and mess up before it is even to the half, just a half coocked job, the fact that you or anyone by the matter says that sheer numbers doesn't matter shows how little you know about conflict, it just make me go like these 
actually is fun because the same thing the US thought with vietnam, and uis funny how even do our country is suffering greatly in figthing thrid world countries like iraq and afghanistan, out of sudden it seem like it won't suffer nothing for fighting against a country with more numbers, more tech. advance than af. or iraq etc. etc.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> seems like you didn't read my whole post



most of your posts are you lying...it means not allot of people want to take you serious

being fraudulent and all 



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> firstable peasr harbor was made by ajapan in crisis with inferior tech. china is not exactly in crisis right now more like the opposite, second pear harbol was badly done like a music that starts good and mess up before it is even to the half, just a half coocked job, the fact that you or anyone by the matter says that sheer numbers doesn't matter shows how little you know about conflict, it just make me go like these



so your basically either willingly ignorant..a highs chool drop out..or just don't care

Japan constructed the heavyiest most well armed battleship in history..it built two more..one converted into an air craft carrier

they where..extremely experienced..more then any other army..in world war two..very skilled..had some of *the* most intelligent military leaders in the war (yamamoto was a genius..) 

they participated in a candidate for the largest naval battle in the history of warfare...for fucks sakes 

they where starved for oil....but they where by no means behind...especially considering the top secret shit they built and unleashed on the Americans in the final days of the war

they also roflstomped all over China...

you really have no ground to stand on in this thread your also a massive idiot..if you think China can actually survive fielding an army of more then..say five million people...


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> most of your posts are you lying...it means not allot of people want to take you serious
> 
> being fraudulent and all
> ..


please point out a lie, or just stop flame baiting 




> so your basically either willingly ignorant..a highs chool drop out..or just don't care
> 
> Japan constructed the heavyiest most well armed battleship in history..it built two more..one converted into an air craft carrier
> 
> ...


a weak and debilitated and by no means as powerful as actual china ,


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> I want you to look at china's number of people avaliable for war time cut in half and tell me that they still not win.


They don't.



heavy_rasengan said:


> the article say about the number that it won't be deployed in large number, now what is large to and army regulary a fuckload of times bigger than our own in war time?






heavy_rasengan said:


> but i'm basing my debate in us going there


It would still win.



heavy_rasengan said:


> even if the aoutput is just 2 tenth is still better than the abrams


What? I just told you that the Abrams can shoot at longer ranges. And with the new experimental smart round, it has over twice the T-99's range!



heavy_rasengan said:


> that will be awesome if it wasn't outnumber


Effective Range:30km

There's 951 of these. And they have been shown to have deadly accuracy even against tanks at long ranges during Iraq. The US has over 9,000 Abrams to protect them....



heavy_rasengan said:


> yet becasue of the cost it has become.....


For a stealth aircraft that can outmaneuver many conventional aircraft and has good range, it actually isn't that much. Also, you're forgetting that at this point in time production is still at its most expensive because its still in the early stages. As production continues it will become, _much_ cheaper, just like everything else. It's how mass production works.

Once the assembly lines and the technology for the individual item are easily available, price drops radically.



heavy_rasengan said:


> hey the F-22 just got introduce in the military, yet analist for the pentagon said it would be of no use against chian if we go there


No, it said that it would be tough to _defend Taiwan_ 



heavy_rasengan said:


> firstable peasr harbor was made by ajapan in crisis with inferior tech.


Japanese aircraft>>>>>>>US aircraft at the time.



heavy_rasengan said:


> china is not exactly in crisis right now more like the opposite, second pear harbol was badly done like a music that starts good and mess up before it is even to the half,


Yet it still left the US Navy's presence in the Pacific weak for a while.



heavy_rasengan said:


> just a half coocked job, the fact that you or anyone by the matter says that sheer numbers doesn't matter shows how little you know about conflict, it just make me go like these


Sheer numbers don't matter. Such as that the US had more Wildcats than the Japanese had Zeros at Pearl Harbor, and... Well, we all know how the Wildcats got raped by the Zeros...



Sylar said:


> If I'm not mistaken the US isn't trying to occupy the enemy country. So we just drop enough heavy ordinace to turn the country into a parking lot until we get the white flag. This is bloodlusted. No Geneva convention, no United Nations.
> 
> God forbid we bring in chemical weapons...


Wowwww...am I the only fucker here with a heart?? Wow, I've been come massively less of a prick since I've joined here.


----------



## Archreaper93 (Apr 26, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> that entire area hates the US with a passion nowadays, except maybe Taiwan.



What about S. Korea?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

jedijohn said:


> What about S. Korea?



And Iran and Japan


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> please point out a lie, or just stop flame baiting



this entire line of posting about Japans inferior technology has been an outeright lie

the zero was better, they had the fucking musashi and yamato they had rocket fueled suicide boming...people bombs..and a shit load of other things




Blackfeather Dragon said:


> a weak and debilitated and by no means as powerful as actual china ,



yet this weak debilitated nation...managed to create _*the single largest Empire in human history.*_...in the span of twenty years? at a pace only matched by Genghis khan in ten thousand years of written human history..no single nation has achieved the territorial dominance Japan has and only two other nations did something similar so fast in such a time span....had the most experienced troops in the war..wielded some of the most advanced fighter jets in the war

and to add insult to injury when they where on their death bead as a world power they still managed to give the US hell in what historians believe might be perhaps the single largest naval engagement in the History of the human race?

do you understand the retardation..of your post now?


----------



## Enclave (Apr 26, 2010)

Completely depends on the definition of "defeat".

If it's total eradication, they could defeat most countries.

If it's successful occupation then the number drops DRAMATICALLY (and when I say successful I mean a stop to hostilities).  Hell, I doubt the States could even successfully occupy Canada or Mexico (who would be the easiest simply due to proximity so supply chains would be easy to keep up).  See, occupying a country is rather insanely hard because a large portion of the population becomes enemy combatants.  It's very hard to fight against unless you're going the eradication method, however the States doesn't have the balls to fight a war like that.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> *yet this weak delibtated nation...managed to create the single largest Empire in human history....*in the span of twenty years? at a pace only matched by ghengis khan in ten thousand years of written human history..no single nation has acheived the territorial dominance Japan has and only two other nations did something similar so fast in such a time span....had the most experienced troops in the war..wielded some of the most advanced fighter jets in the war
> 
> and to add insult to injury when they where on their death bead as a world power they still managed to give the US hell in what historians believe might be perhaps the single largest naval engagement in the History of the human race?
> 
> do you understand the retardation..of your post now?


so you keep flame baiting, anyways i was talking about china, but anyways englans beg to differ, them againg it a surprise attack in desperation, and please keep yourself in topic


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Enclave said:


> If it's successful occupation then the number drops DRAMATICALLY (and when I say successful I mean a stop to hostilities).  Hell, I doubt the States could even successfully occupy Canada or Mexico (who would be the easiest simply due to proximity so supply chains would be easy to keep up).  See, occupying a country is rather insanely hard because a large portion of the population becomes enemy combatants.  *It's very hard to fight against unless you're going the eradication method, however the States doesn't have the balls to fight a war like that.*


Every country we've ever occupied loves us because we've made them so rich. Just look at Germany and Japan.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> so you keep flame baiting, anyways i was talking about china, but anyways englans beg to differ, them againg it a surprise attack in desperation, and please keep yourself in topic



He wasn't flame baiting. Anywho, note how he pointed out the time span. England didn't conquer anywhere near that amount of land within a decade or two.


----------



## Kurou (Apr 26, 2010)

IWD and paul, the defenders of America


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

KurouKetsu said:


> IWD and paul, the defenders of America



Don't forget Watchman.

And:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=298Cw3_qGwE[/YOUTUBE]
We three Americans


----------



## Kurou (Apr 26, 2010)

watchmen was owning as well, so that leaves me to ask why are you still arguing with BFD?

and yes liberty prime was .


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

KurouKetsu said:


> watchmen was owning as well, so that leaves me to ask why are you still arguing with BFD?
> 
> and yes liberty prime was .


Because our mission is the destruction of any and all Chinese Communists 

It's almost scary how well that vid fits this thread....


----------



## Kurou (Apr 26, 2010)

true. Democracy is non negotiable. fucking win


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> so you keep flame baiting, anyways i was talking about china, but anyways englans beg to differ, them againg it a surprise attack in desperation, and please keep yourself in topic



so basically your tripping over your own posts to hide the fact that your lying and got plainly caught sdoing so is that it? is that what your doing now? how fucking low are you willing to sink ? 

you know god damn well we where on topic since you brought it up, we where talking aout how the US couldn't possibly make total war on China because it's economy would suffer more then Americas..I procceded to point out to that this was bullshit

you retorted that Japan was a broke ass nations behind America Technological I pointed out that you where a lying idiot...and proceded to explain why...and yes you got fucking caught

so don;t try and change the subject you fucking idiot..your a liar you got caught lying...you Don;t know anything about this topic...you can't even debate in this threasd with out making shit up..something paulatreides watchman and myself have caught you numerous times doing 

China economy will die with out America..you canno prove honeslty that the Us wouldn;t ruin  Chinas shit..now concede..your shut your ass the fuck up...and leave..i don;t care

but stop fucking posting if all your gonna do is lie distort the truth..and dodge arguments and throw out redhering


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Embrace Democracy or you will be e-ra-di-ca-ted! ^2

Watchdog, since BFD has already been used to wipe the floor, what do you think of the more pressing issue at hand. Liberty Prime


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> so basically your tripping over your own posts to hide the fact that your lying and got plainly caught sdoing so is that it? is that what your doing now? how fucking low are you willing to sink ?
> 
> you know god damn well we where on topic since you brought it up, we where talking aout how the US couldn't possibly make total war on China because it's economy would suffer more then Americas..I procceded to point out to that this was bullshit
> 
> ...


so yet you don't understand that i was talking about china, please re read my last 3 post or just stop trolling


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> so yet you don't understand that i was talking about china, please re read my last 3 post or just stop trolling



BFD, just admit you've lost, you've been crushed at every turn and twist by _three_ separate posters.....


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> BFD, just admit you've lost, you've been crushed at every turn and twist by _three_ separate posters.....



no, why because you still even after i disprove how useless the F-22 raptors how advance are they weapon and how big is their army, IMW just keep trolling and talking about japan, without reading my post


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no, why because you still even after i disprove how useless the F-22 raptors how advance are they weapon and how big is their army, IMW just keep trolling and talking about japan, without reading my post



You have yet to disprove how they are inefficient. Your _only_ actual argument for that has been of the defense plans for Taiwan which is a _drastically_ different scenario than this. 

We have more tanks than they do. We have better equipment in larger numbers than they do. We have the technological advantage and they do. We have better and more reliable weaponry than they do. We have smart bombs and hydrogen bombs (the non-nuclear kind), fuel air bombs, MOABs, stealth technology that outclasses anything and everything they've yet to show. We have gunships, attack helicopters, and other such aircraft and weapons that outclass theirs in many, many ways. Our Navy could wipe the floor with theirs with no effort. And our Army could do the same with some effort. Our Air Force can destroy theirs easily not only by sheer numbers, but also a large technological advantage, and then we have an extra 3.7k naval aircraft to help us out abroad.

They have...more infantry.

And the only reason that IWD is talking about Japan is because you, Lucifeller, and Rasengan brought it up and brought up false points about Pearl Harbor and how "feeble" and "weak" Japan was and yet they'd pulled it off, yet at the time Japan was a great world power with _the best_ naval aircraft in the _world._

Here's _your_ post about Japan:


Blackfeather Dragon said:


> firstable peasr harbor was made by ajapan in crisis with inferior tech. china is not exactly in crisis right now more like the opposite, second pear harbol was badly done like a music that starts good and mess up before it is even to the half, just a half coocked job, the fact that you or anyone by the matter says that sheer numbers doesn't matter shows how little you know about conflict, it just make me go like these


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> You have yet to disprove how they are inefficient. Your _only_ actual argument for that has been of the defense plans for Taiwan which is a _drastically_ different scenario than this.
> 
> We have more tanks than they do. We have better equipment in larger numbers than they do. We have the technological advantage and they do. We have better and more reliable weaponry than they do. We have smart bombs and hydrogen bombs (the non-nuclear kind), fuel air bombs, MOABs, stealth technology that outclasses anything and everything they've yet to show. We have gunships, attack helicopters, and other such aircraft and weapons that outclass theirs in many, many ways. Our Navy could wipe the floor with theirs with no effort. And our Army could do the same with some effort. Our Air Force can destroy theirs easily not only by sheer numbers, but also a large technological advantage, and then we have an extra 3.7k naval aircraft to help us out abroad.
> 
> ...


no i was just telling him that pearl harbor was just a half cooked job, they messed up because they didn't keep attacking pearl harbor is nothing but a desperation attack in the U.S.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no i was just telling him that pearl harbor was just a half cooked job, they messed up because they didn't keep attacking pearl harbor is nothing but a desperation attack in the U.S.


-Clears Throat-



> *firstable peasr harbor was made by ajapan in crisis with inferior tech.* china is not exactly in crisis right now more like the opposite, second pear harbol was badly done like a music that starts good and mess up before it is even to the half, just a half coocked job, the fact that you or anyone by the matter says that sheer numbers doesn't matter shows how little you know about conflict, it just make me go like these



Also, it wasn't a desperation attack as much as revenge against the US for "abandoning" them as they had done. By this point in the war Japan was still very, very, very powerful and boasted the single _most_ powerful Navy in the _world,_ with the most effective naval fighters in the world, with USN in close second.

And it wasn't half-cooked. Sure, in the end, not all targets were hit, but it still crippled the Pacific fleet for a while and left it weak and undermanned.

Since you have just been defeated...again... This thread is now about Liberty Prime


----------



## Kurou (Apr 26, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> no i was just telling him that pearl harbor was just a half cooked job, they messed up because they didn't keep attacking pearl harbor is nothing but a desperation attack in the U.S.



the bombing of pearl harbor is what made the U.S. fight japan in the first place, how was that a desperation attack


----------



## Archreaper93 (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Since you have just been defeated...again... This thread is now about Liberty Prime



Only I, as the OP, get to decide what this thread is about.
But go ahed and talk about Liberty Prime.  Because I'm that nice.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

He solos all Chinese Forces on this thread.


----------



## Sylar (Apr 26, 2010)

*Probability of a Chinese victory: Impossible!*


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Communism Is A Temporary Set Back, On The Road, To Freedom.


----------



## Sylar (Apr 26, 2010)

*EMBRACE DEMOCRACY OR** YOU WILL BE ERADICATED!!*


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

*DEATH IS PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM!!!*


----------



## Sylar (Apr 26, 2010)

*COMMUNISM IS** A LIE!!!!*


----------



## Platinum (Apr 26, 2010)

Better Dead Then Red!!!


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

*COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!!!*


----------



## Sylar (Apr 26, 2010)

*I DIE... SO THAT DEMOCRACY MAY LIVE!!!*


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Sylar said:


> *I DIE... SO THAT DEMOCRACY MAY LIVE!!!*



*DEMOCRACY, WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!!!!*


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> this is sans nukes



I thought nukes were banned, I mean in nations vs really dont see much in including nukes, it takes the "taste" out of the match and only summarizes the battle on who have more missles and who presses the button first.

I like this thread but please PLEASE lets not fall in nationfanbosism/tardism even if USA win, I dont get why when people go fanboys/tards over one character they are retarded and negged, but when they go tards over their country is ok



paulatreides0 said:


> *COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!!!*



Nationtardism is obvious here, this is why I dont like this thread it always turns into (and I dont say it just because of USA I say it because every nation thread there are nationtards of that country) and it always turn into a "OMG MY COUNTRY IS THE BEST!"

By the way neither system is perfect, capitalism is better alternative than communism but is FAR from perfect, when you find a system where dudes doesnt have to crush the other and pass above him to get money call me


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> I thought nukes were banned, I mean in nations vs really dont see much in including nukes, it takes the "taste" out of the match and only summarizes the battle on who have more missles and who presses the button first.


According to Setphen Hawkings and many other physicists, it would only take ~10 Thermonuclear Nukes of the Tactical ICBM range of yield to cause a Nuclear Winter and fuck everyone over anyway. So, realistically every last country that currently has nuclear capabilities is actually capable of completely destroying the world.



Orochibuto said:


> II like this thread but please PLEASE lets not fall in nationfanbosism/tardism even if USA win, I dont get why when people go fanboys/tards over one character they are retarded and negged, but when they go tards over their country is ok


Liberty Prime Transcends Nationalism


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> According to Setphen Hawkings and many other physicists, it would only take ~10 Thermonuclear Nukes of the Tactical ICBM range of yield to cause a Nuclear Winter and fuck everyone over anyway. So, realistically every last country that currently has nuclear capabilities is actually capable of completely destroying the world.



Thats why I say nukes should be banned, it provides no answer to whom would win a war, nukes are really there for the show I dont see them beign used on any war that doesnt ends in doomsday they are pretty much a way to say "you may be the world power but you dare to put a step on my territory and I will blow the planet" you dont even need to hit the target country (in this case USA) to win just blow them randomly in nearby areas and you have doomsday, so every war that uses nukes = stalemate.



paulatreides0 said:


> Liberty Prime Transcends Nationalism


[/QUOTE]

Everyone their own opinion, but if you ask me nationtards do the same as Itachitards, only that instead of doing it with fictional characters they do it with a country


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> Thats why I say nukes should be banned, it provides no answer to whom would win a war, nukes are really there for the show I dont see them beign used on any war that doesnt ends in doomsday they are pretty much a way to say "you may be the world power but you dare to put a step on my territory and I will blow the planet" you dont even need to hit the target country (in this case USA) to win just blow them randomly in nearby areas and you have doomsday, so every war that uses nukes = stalemate.


Exactly. Which is why they are almost always banned.



Orochibuto said:


> Everyone their own opinion, but if you ask me nationtards do the same as Itachitards, only that instead of doing it with fictional characters they do it with a country


I was just joking. There's no nationalism waking here, just Liberty Prime wanking


----------



## Enclave (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Every country we've ever occupied loves us because we've made them so rich. Just look at Germany and Japan.



Then lets look at Afganistan and Iraq.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 26, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Then lets look at Afganistan and Iraq.



We haven't made them rich _or_ prosperous. 

Although, to be fair, a lot of the problems in that region have to do with religious views, the ignorance of the Bush administration, and terrorism or idiotic things Americans do looking for terrorists.

Although...then again, once upon a time, a long, long time ago. In a set of islands far, far away, we were hated with a burning passion..and then we made them into the second most prosperous nation in the world...and they loved us!! :33


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> He wasn't flame baiting. Anywho, note how he pointed out the time span. England didn't conquer anywhere near that amount of land within a decade or two.



it took England about a hundred and fifty years..

though that's actually a great examplew to support our arguments..considering a tiny little nation that Rome and a few other powers considered ass backwards

completely dominated seventy five percent of the planet for almost five centuries and would routinely curbstomp the most powerful nations in the world _simultaneously _..and will likely be influencing history for thousands of years to come

superior numbers meant very little against the skill and navy and commerce of the British Empire...That's the Impact that a strong private sector great tactical skills and being very good at making do with what you 



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> so yet you don't understand that i was talking about china, please re read my last 3 post or just stop trolling



please go reread your own posts you damn troll..when you try and save face like this..when its plain as day what was actually happening for all to see

all you do is make yourself look even less credible and more Fruadulent

you can't even accurately adress why americas economy would suffer more then China...when their desperate for our grain and beef

I mean fuck a shitty nations like Argentina (yes yes I I just called my former homeland shitty but fuck you kirschners you  guys suck) who have Retards running the country and are ass backwards in debt...and have absolutely no military to speak of beyond a couple world war two era battleships they bought from England on discount had been for the past five years practically choke hold style dominating China in trade negotations because they where so desperate for their grain/beef

fuck THEY WHERE BUYING FREAKING SOY BEANS..FROM ARGENTINA BRAZIL AND THE UNITED STATES..that's how god damned dependet they are on..foreing food...that they have to buy their own fucking home grown national product by the millions of tons...to in order to feed their population

do you now understand the magnantude of damage a food blockade would do the peoples republic? do you...understand or can you still not get your fucking facts


----------



## Extasee (Apr 26, 2010)

We're weak against Alaska. 

Oh wait-


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 26, 2010)

Why cant you accept USA isnt invincible neither the best country in the world (no country really qualify for this position)? I like my country but I wont say is the best in the world, thats absurd


----------



## Kurou (Apr 26, 2010)

Sylar said:


> *Probability of a Chinese victory: Impossible!*





paulatreides0 said:


> Communism Is A Temporary Set Back, On The Road, To Freedom.





Sylar said:


> *EMBRACE DEMOCRACY OR** YOU WILL BE ERADICATED!!*





paulatreides0 said:


> *DEATH IS PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM!!!*





Sylar said:


> *COMMUNISM IS** A LIE!!!!*





Platinum said:


> Better Dead Then Red!!!





paulatreides0 said:


> *COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!!!*





Sylar said:


> *I DIE... SO THAT DEMOCRACY MAY LIVE!!!*





paulatreides0 said:


> *DEMOCRACY, WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!!!!*




pure fucking win.


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 26, 2010)

KurouKetsu said:


> pure fucking win.



Pure fucking nation-fanboyism if you ask me, capitalism is a way better option than communism but is FAR from perfect


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> I thought nukes were banned, I mean in nations vs really dont see much in including nukes, it takes the "taste" out of the match and only summarizes the battle on who have more missles and who presses the button first.]



yup thats what I said nukes are banned other wise the match is entirely with out point




Orochibuto said:


> I like this thread but please PLEASE lets not fall in nationfanbosism/tardism even if USA win, I dont get why when people go fanboys/tards over one character they are retarded and negged, but when they go tards over their country is ok



this isn't nation tardism though I'm not even American originally am now..but I was born in argentina..the only American in the family is my mum...and she's the daughter of Irish Immigrants  any ways...so I'm like third Generation American immigrant 

this is about facts,..and a historical reality...there are maybe six nations that commanded the power and dominance the US commands now..and only three of those countries...have had effects so far reaching into history (an shadow..that millenium later we still live under) that the US will eventually have

trying to make war against a hyperpower is..very difficult..

if we where discussing Rome..in its peak..the Mongol Empire in its prime..or the British Empire..and some one was saying the other side would win in an equally preposterous manner I'd be arguing just as agressively..as I am now here

and I have..in the past both here and on other boards...that's not the issue nationalism

its the facts 

oh and oThe Topic of Afganistan and Vietnam..the Generals in charge of both wars have made the misdtake of looking to men like Patton Macarthur Rommel and Yamamoto and Montgomery for tactics on how to fight..a war against insurengents

what they should be looking at is The tactics of Ethan Allen, Nathaniel Greene William T Sherman..and lord Cornwallace handling of the Guerillas in India (I think it was him) 

which is a mistake..a critical one but if you look at a body count list not released by a biased ass media source..you'll find that we're still giving woirse then we're getting 



paulatreides0 said:


> -Clears Throat-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



to add to this Isoroku yamamoto was and still is iirc considered one of the most intelligent naval  minds of the last two hundreds years...he went to school with chester Nimitz and knew bull hasley he supposedly used to play Wargames with Nimitz in the academy ..they where friends

the man *knew* how they fought..he had tremendous experience commanded the best navy and air force at the time...his navy was backed up by the most experienced army in the world at the time...

and he *still* openly was against fighting the US and still thought he'd loose 

it tells you the magnitude of the oppsotion we faced...the man both knew our tactics...and knew how our leaders fought..and because of this..he still felt..that he couldn;t win


*Spoiler*: __ 



you know actually why the fuck didn't they make an anime out the war in the pacific? the hole hasley/nimitz/yamamoto relationship..is like straight up out of a manga the three  masters and their men..having to face each other..each familiar with their enemies style




yet China is gonna be able to win because the Us economy is so sensative *facepalms*


----------



## axiaelements (Apr 26, 2010)

Capitalism only differs from slavery in one way: You have to feed your slaves... Think about that.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

axiaelements said:


> Capitalism only differs from slavery in one way: You have to feed your slaves... Think about that.



cool story bro

but your in the wrong section the cafes over there


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Apr 26, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> No duh? Taking on the three greatest world powers simultaneously would count as something _very_ stupid, don't 'cha think??
> 
> As well as that Germany almost killed Britain, almost, but then it switched its tactics and allowed Britain time to rebuild its airforce.
> 
> And, as for Russia, better supply lines, lack of the US, and equipment that would have been better fit for the Russian Winter, they could have taken Russia too.



What do you mean no duh? You were the one implying Germany had a chance to begin with. U.S joining the war was inevitable. It would have eventually joined with or without pearl harbor.



> And as well as that the US has a _huge_ head start in _all_ of these things. No country outside of the US has yet to build something that can even compare to the F-117 (or at least has been proven to).



Again, mimicking technology is not as hard as your putting it out to be. If China raises their spending to 500 billion they will catch up no time especially with a labor force of such a quantity. The United States spending is much greater than every other country COMBINED. No fucking surprise that their technology is booming but it isnt something another superpower cant copy, especially one of China's caliber.



> No, you idiot... I was saying that the _majority_ of their _current_ tanks are T-55 based models.
> 
> 
> And can still be killed easily by Abrams and shitted on en-masse by two or three Apaches


.

So what the fuck does that have to do with anything. They will obviously not be fielded in battle because China is replacing all of them. In WWII countries produced tens of thousands of tanks in a mere year. In the modern world China has the money and manpower to outnumber the Americans. Sorry, an Abram is not taking out 5 96s, each of which are more cost efficient as well.




> Units we could withdraw at will, btw.....



Wtf are you talking about? When did i refer to the units at all. The United States economy is shaking when dealing with mere third world countries and you expect them to handle China? That was my point.



> Lolwhat? China imports a shit load of steel, food, and other raw goods from the US. No steel means no tanks, no food means no rations to feed the soldiers and a social uprising by a starving people.



So fucking what? China is not DEPENDENT on the United States, sure their revenues will fall but it wont make any substantial difference considering they will just start importing MORE from other countries. U.S is not the country China imports the most from. China has been an isolationist for a very long period of time, they can manage without American imports. 



> Like? You mean allies of the US? And, btw, this is ignoring that there are few countries in the world that can produce steel and raw goods like the US can. The US has plenty of just about everything _but_ oil as far as natural resources go. Most countries can't say this....



Where are you getting this stupid bullshit from? Thats the funniest shit ive heard considering China is the largest steel producer in the world. 



> So if we beat them in a war, we won't have to pay back the debt. Great. Hell, in the end we'll do what we did with Japan and just end up making surpluss off of them



Thats not the point. That shows how fragile U.S economy is.



> That was active personnel. And what if China is a communist country? What is it going to do? Force _everyone_ into a draft and then have a revolt in its hands because it pissed everyone in the country off?



Worked for Russia didnt it



> Not to mention that drifting these people would leave china in chaos, revolt or not. If you draft most of your work force who is going to produce your food? Who is going to make your tanks and vehicles? _Think_ for a second you dimwit. The majority of China's peoples are still farmers and even then they are forced to import a shit load of food, mainly from the US and its allies. What happens if you get rid of most of your farmers? Where do you get food? How do you build tanks and guns if you have no work force?



Wtf are you going on about? When the fuck did I say China would draft that many people, that is the stupid shit ever. It only shows what they are capable. What fucking country drafts 600 million people? Even 10 percent of that is DEADLY.



> Where are they going to get this tech from, you fool? Tell me that. How they are gonna get examples that tech. How long do you think it takes to reverse engineer something? How hard do you think it is to reverse engineer high tech stuff, and even more so when you don't even have the basis upon which that technology is built??



Oh ok so the American technology is not a basis to build upon Lets see, a country with more than one billion inhabitants in a state of war would produce it damn fast. 



> Design started in 1937
> 
> 
> Designed in 1940, 3 years _before_ the US entered the war
> ...



Im calling you a fool because you obviously are one. T-34 design was 1937-1940. If you had any hint of intellect you would know that the point i was making about all of these being build during WWII was how fast it takes to do so. 3 years is fucking fast. No tank has been an entirely new model since WWI.... 

Also if you havent noticed 1940 is a year after WWII began and I said DURING WWII regardless if a country is at war or not.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Apr 26, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> oh for Christs sake that's why a *far* less advanced and industrially efficient US in the middle of one of the worse Depressions in history..and on the back of one of the worse droughts and food shortages of the last thousand years...was able to effectively..out produce...every other nations in the fucking war minus maybe Russia by a factor of five or six...at a time when the US was running on nothing but will power....and empty coffers and promises
> 
> good lord..I mean seriously it got to the point where Some Germany soldiers have recounted stories where they would see the skies darkened by flying Fotresses  and they would unload ammo into them..down a bunch..then twice their number would show up
> 
> ...



Um, yes they were able to outproduce because they sat on their ass for 4 years selling weapons to the whole world. Everyone knows that U.S ticket out of the depression was WWII. So your point is actually mooot.



> No country on Earth can support an army of 600 million people across an ocean. That is ridonkulous.



@watchman Since when does 600 million people being fit for war equate to a country using 600 million people in an army? That is ridiculous and completely idiotic but what is even more ridiculous is that less than 5 percent of that is more than enough.


----------



## Glued (Apr 26, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> Pure fucking nation-fanboyism if you ask me, capitalism is a way better option than communism but is FAR from perfect



They are merely joking about Liberty Prime from Fallout 3

[YOUTUBE]298Cw3_qGwE[/YOUTUBE]

"If you have to explain the joke, there is no joke." -Joker from Batman TAS.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 26, 2010)

Heavy you've got allot wrong there

but I will say this I personally think your a better debater then BFD is your trying to prove your point and your doing it honestly...I can respect that even though I don't agree with you at all  



heavy_rasengan said:


> Um, yes they were able to outproduce because they sat on their ass for 4 years selling weapons to the whole world. Everyone knows that U.S ticket out of the depression was WWII. So your point is actually mooot.



they where..actually giving them guns..and tanks virtually for free and did not get paid back...until after the war With England any ways 

so yes your right..it was Americas ticket out of the war..but not until after the fucking war when we came to collect the bill


----------



## LazyWaka (Apr 26, 2010)

I was going to throw my two cents in, but it would seem that T.I.W. and paulatreides0 have pretty much wrapped things up.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 27, 2010)

Orochibuto said:


> I thought nukes were banned, I mean in nations vs really dont see much in including nukes, it takes the "taste" out of the match and only summarizes the battle on who have more missles and who presses the button first.
> 
> I like this thread but please PLEASE lets not fall in nationfanbosism/tardism even if USA win, I dont get why when people go fanboys/tards over one character they are retarded and negged, but when they go tards over their country is ok
> 
> ...





Orochibuto said:


> Why cant you accept USA isnt invincible neither the best country in the world (no country really qualify for this position)? I like my country but I wont say is the best in the world, thats absurd



Yo, just FYI I'm a Brit and certainly not the biggest fan of the USA, but it's pretty clear-cut that they're head and shoulders above the rest of the world militarily. The difference may not be so immediately obvious just looking at armies, but check out navies and air forces as well to see that they have a 2-1 advantage over the next biggest military powers of Russia and China in terms of ships and fighter jets, combined with superior technology.



heavy_rasengan said:


> @watchman Since when does 600 million people being fit for war equate to a country using 600 million people in an army? That is ridiculous and completely idiotic but what is even more ridiculous is that less than 5 percent of that is more than enough.



I was going with the best case scenario of the 600 million people fit for war. Of course, if you'd like to go with 5% fighting at a time, then the USA wins quite easily via concentration of force.

And of course, my scenario assumed that there was no USN or USAF to stop any Chinese invasion of the USA.

Considering that there IS, It's more than a safe bet to say that not a single one of those 600 million can even reach the mainland because China does not have a navy that can compare with the USN.

Now, on the defence, sure, you've got that huge number of 600 million but a Bloodlusted USA isn't going to shove its military into China and fight them head on, and 600 million people with rifles can't compete with a bombing and chemical warfare campaign the likes of which we've never seen before.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 27, 2010)

Sylar said:


> So wait the Chinese are Tyranids now? When did this happen?
> 
> If I'm not mistaken the US isn't trying to occupy the enemy country. So we just drop enough heavy ordinace to turn the country into a parking lot until we get the white flag. This is bloodlusted. No Geneva convention, no United Nations.
> 
> God forbid we bring in chemical weapons...



Yes, because a communist country that regularly breaks the Geneva convention and is KNOWN for having chemical weapons wouldn't respond in tune. Right?

In fact, the Chinese would be more likely to bomb/gas/horribly kill their own troops engaged with yours just to destroy yours as well. They can afford a 3:1 kill ratio. You can't.

If you start using the 'bomb the shit out of everything' logic, nothing prevents China from doing the same. If bloodlust is assumed on, they would neither bother with defense nor care about losses - they'd just keep pushing, and there's simply no way the US could stand their ground, since China is a horrible field to meet a superior-numbers army on - no bottlenecks to stop larger numbers with a small force (it's mostly plains and half deserted areas, the best you get is rivers), not enough mountains and on top of that the Chinese are used to being in a very bad tactical position and still making do with it.

At that point, with both nations committed to all out assault, numbers start to matter. Each side can and will inflict massive losses on the other if they simply forget about defense and throw everything at each other, but the Chinese have enough numbers that their survivors will still be a lot more than yours. Neither country will be in any shape to continue the war, but there'll be no american army anymore, while the Chinese will just do the usual breed like rabbits thing they do and rebuild their soldier force within a couple years. That's the advantage of having over a third of the current world populace - although projections indicate that India will have more inhabitants than China by 2050...


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Yes, because a communist country that regularly breaks the Geneva convention and is KNOWN for having chemical weapons wouldn't respond in tune. Right?
> 
> In fact, the Chinese would be more likely to bomb/gas/horribly kill their own troops engaged with yours just to destroy yours as well. They can afford a 3:1 kill ratio. You can't.
> 
> ...



China lacks the ability to bomb enemy forces on the same level that the US can, due to their lack of air superiority. You need control of the air to protect your bombers, and China's MiG clones simply aren't going to cut it against F-22s. Also, US forces are much more deadly on an individual basis when you factor in force multipliers like satellite info, drone warfare, and naval/air support.

Also, why the hell would the US commit to a ground assault against an enemy with superior numbers, anyway? That's pure retardation. If anything, they'd carpet bomb everything that poked its head above the ground and use the Army/Marines to take and hold airfields from which to continue the air campaign.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Yes, because a communist country that regularly breaks the Geneva convention and is KNOWN for having chemical weapons wouldn't respond in tune. Right?
> 
> In fact, the Chinese would be more likely to bomb/gas/horribly kill their own troops engaged with yours just to destroy yours as well. They can afford a 3:1 kill ratio. You can't.



Air. Superiority.

The United States Navy has more combat aircraft than China. The United States Airforce ALSO has more combat aircraft than China, and American combat aircraft are more advanced than their Chinese equivalents. China is _not_ getting air superiority, and thus their ability to bomb and gas everything is going to be greatly reduced.



> If you start using the 'bomb the shit out of everything' logic, nothing prevents China from doing the same.



The gross disparity between their airforce and that of the USA's is what pervents them.



> If bloodlust is assumed on, they would neither bother with defense nor care about losses - they'd just keep pushing, and there's simply no way the US could stand their ground, since China is a horrible field to meet a superior-numbers army on - no bottlenecks to stop larger numbers with a small force (it's mostly plains and half deserted areas, the best you get is rivers), not enough mountains and on top of that the Chinese are used to being in a very bad tactical position and still making do with it.



If USA takes the fight to China, it will be after they have dominated the aerospace and can meet the larger Chinese army with air warfare. Not to mention bombing supply centres, factories in the cities, napalming Chinese agricultural sites, blockading trade routes etc. - the sort of stuff that brings a country (especially in this globalized world) to its knees.



> Neither country will be in any shape to continue the war, but there'll be no american army anymore, while the Chinese will just do the usual breed like rabbits thing they do and rebuild their soldier force within a couple years.



1: FFS people don't grow that fast. You can't just grow a new generation of soldiers a few years after they're born.

2: Isn't much of the aging population of China sterile as per the One-Child Policy?

3: I can't stress this enough - people don't mature in a few years.

4: You're again ignoring the USN, USAF, and any economic factors, and just assuming it's army vs. army. There's more to war than that.



> That's the advantage of having over a third of the current world populace - although projections indicate that India will have more inhabitants than China by 2050...



They don't have over a third of the current world populace. According to the official Chinese Population Clock, they have less than 20%.

And having a large population srsly isn't that much of an advantage in the age of modern warfare. This isn't Napoleonic-era "everyone lines up in a field and shoots at each other until one side gives up" anymore.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 27, 2010)

...

Protect... your bombers?

If you are committed to full frontal assault, exactly why would you bother defending? The goal isn't to retain air superiority or anything klike that, the goal is to inflict as much damage as possible, preferably 100% or more, on the enemy army before they do the same to you. What defense? Total, ruthless aggression is what I'm talking about.

The reason why the US have so much trouble with terrorists is precisely because they don't follow conventional rules of war. They simply aim to cause as much damage as possible, regardless of their own survival. And judging by how many US soldiers regularly buy the farm due to ONE suicide bomber/carbomb/stray mortar shot, it's bloody effective. The US army has proven repeatedly during this pointless 'war on terrior' that they are totally awesome at fighting openly, but when the enemy stops caring about losses and just wants to cause damage and death, they become a lot less efficient - 95% of losses by the US army were experienced AFTER the supposed war ended, and most of them were a terrible ratio for the States (one terrorist exploded equaled at least half a dozen of theior soldiers dead or severely wounded).

That's the reason why I find the whole concept of 'maintaining air superiority' funny. You assume that the enemy would play straight in your strengths, when in fact, both sides are supposed bloodlusted, which does mean China is a lot more likely to just send wave after wave, regardless of how many losses they take, because if they can cause even a 2:1 ratio loss against you, it's a success. And ruthless aggression without regard for life has been a tactic that has REPEATEDLY succeeded against the US army, simply because they aren't equipped for dealing with it. There's plenty of grieving families that can attest to it. And with that kind of tactic, a country with millions of expendable soldiers is pretty much the worst possible matchup you could ask for.

I'm not saying it's a sound strategy, but it is very effective in severely crippling any invading forces, and it's one tactic where numbers pay off in spades. All China really needs to do is inflict as much damage to your airforce and ground hardware, which they don't necessarily need to survive the mission to do. A suicide run deep in enemy lines can cause as much havoc as any other tactic, and if your planes are busy bombing the Chinese mainland, your rearlines are left open to an airraid from the flanks, which will either force the invading raid to call off their strike or leave your rearlines a smoking heap, both of which will be major problems down the line.

Now, if this scenario was NOT bloodlust and included real life logic (call it PIS and CIS, if you want), then yeah, the US might well win. But in a bloodlust on, CIS/PIS off scenario, China can simply zergrush without a care for how many units they lose, simply because they'd lose a prolonged war, so it's in their interest to just launch a crushingly huge offensive right away, without worrying about losses... and even the mighty US army can't take such a monstrous humanwave tactic even though their tech is superior to China's, not when the Chinese just plain don't care how much they lose.

It's pretty much the one sound tactic the Chinese can use in this scenario - overwhelming offense in spite of losses. Which they can afford thanks, again, to numbers. After all, if their pilots won't come back anyway, no need for them to be well trained... all they need is to be able to unload once and preferably crash on the enemy.


----------



## RockpiRate (Apr 27, 2010)

RockpiRate said:


> yeaa man..the answer is China





paulatreides0 said:


> Not really.....



ok..then Russia


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> ...
> 
> Protect... your bombers?
> 
> ...



You're still not getting it. The Chinese cannot zerg the US with bombers, because _the US can put more fighters, bombers, and support in the air than the Chinese can_. The US OUTNUMBERS the Chinese in the air. Having the Chinese zerg the US would play into the US's hands by eliminating possible threats to a later ground invasion without having to root them out. It'd be like if Al Qaeda one day decided to just mindlessly attack a random US base until either it or the base was destroyed - it'd be a turkey shoot for the US.

Also, you NEED air superiority for your bombers, because even if you don't give a flying fuck about your own forces' survival, YOU STILL NEED THE BOMBERS ALIVE TO GET THE BOMBS ON TARGET. A dead bomber can't drop any bombs.

Without the ability to attack from the air, the Chinese ground army would be sitting ducks for the inevitable cluster bombing that ensues. At that point all those millions of expendable cannon fodder become just that - cannon fodder. They'd most likely never even get a shot off.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 27, 2010)

I know that the US has more airplanes. That's why I said the main thing for the Chinese would be REDUCE THEIR AIRFORCE. Not win in the air - INFLICT AS MUCH DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE PERIOD. With enough damage dealt to the enemy's airforce, their bombing capabilities, as you yourself pointed out, will be greatly reduced, and bombing tends not to work too well when the enemy outnumbers you on ground and you don't have enough airforce left for effective strikes.

The whole point of my tl;dr was to stress the Chinese don't need to *win* in the air, they just need to decently mess your own airforce up. Without a very strong airside, they can make their ground superiority count.

It's more or less the same reason (under different conditions) why the US eventually pulled out of Vietnam - they had an intact airforce, yes, but no real way to effectively bomb, so their air superioity's effect on the conflict was significantly reduced. And on ground, we all know how it went - despite the much greater losses the enemy sustained, you were eventually forced to get out because even if your soldiers survived, they were so traumatized by the enemy's total disregard for life they came back... wrong in the head and pretty much useless from a military standpoint. I haven't met a single Vietnam war veteran that is sane, myself...


----------



## Watchman (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> ...
> 
> Protect... your bombers?
> 
> If you are committed to full frontal assault, exactly why would you bother defending? The goal isn't to retain air superiority or anything klike that, the goal is to inflict as much damage as possible, preferably 100% or more, on the enemy army before they do the same to you. What defense? Total, ruthless aggression is what I'm talking about.



Well if the Chinese wanted to waste their entire airforce barely putting a dent into the superior US one and thus leave their aerospace completely at the mercy of the US, sure they could do that, but it's hardly the smart thing to do.

Bloodlust =/= MAIM KILL BURN ZERG RUSH, it just means that puny things like the Geneva Convention and human morality aren't going to be taken into account.



> The reason why the US have so much trouble with terrorists is precisely because they don't follow conventional rules of war. They simply aim to cause as much damage as possible, regardless of their own survival. And judging by how many US soldiers regularly buy the farm due to ONE suicide bomber/carbomb/stray mortar shot, it's bloody effective. The US army has proven repeatedly during this pointless 'war on terrior' that they are totally awesome at fighting openly, but when the enemy stops caring about losses and just wants to cause damage and death, they become a lot less efficient - 95% of losses by the US army were experienced AFTER the supposed war ended, and most of them were a terrible ratio for the States (one terrorist exploded equaled at least half a dozen of theior soldiers dead or severely wounded).



Because the USA holds itself to a higher standard than the insurgents and thus doesn't do stuff like "bomb the entire neighbourhood to rubble in case there's a terrorist there" - they don't even do an Israel on the insurgents, let alone the worst they could do. 

A bloodlusted USA would have deposed Saddam, gotten its troops out of there and then levelled the entire country from the air. A bloodlusted USA would have blockaded Afghanistan (not that difficult considering the terrain) and starved it out. 



> That's the reason why I find the whole concept of 'maintaining air superiority' funny. You assume that the enemy would play straight in your strengths, when in fact, both sides are supposed bloodlusted, which does mean China is a lot more likely to just send wave after wave, regardless of how many losses they take, because if they can cause even a 2:1 ratio loss against you, it's a success. And ruthless aggression without regard for life has been a tactic that has REPEATEDLY succeeded against the US army, simply because they aren't equipped for dealing with it.



Oh, the USA is equipped for dealing with it, it's a strategy called "more gun", but pesky things like the Geneva convention prevent them from dealing with suicide bombers by flattening a large portion of Baghdad in retaliation for any suicide bombing attacks.



> There's plenty of grieving families that can attest to it. And with that kind of tactic, a country with millions of expendable soldiers is pretty much the worst possible matchup you could ask for.



Unless of course you're bloodlusted, so don't step foot into that country until you've decimated every city with chemical warfare and a bombing campaign that makes WW2 look miniscule.



> I'm not saying it's a sound strategy, but it is very effective in severely crippling any invading forces, and it's one tactic where numbers pay off in spades. All China really needs to do is inflict as much damage to your airforce and ground hardware, which they don't necessarily need to survive the mission to do.



And that's not at all an easy thing to do.



> A suicide run deep in enemy lines can cause as much havoc as any other tactic, and if your planes are busy bombing the Chinese mainland, your rearlines are left open to an airraid from the flanks



Did you miss the part where I said that the USN and the USAF _seperately_ have more aircraft than the whole Chinese military? The USA could dedicate 50% of its aircraft to China and win, they don't need the whole 100%



> Now, if this scenario was NOT bloodlust and included real life logic (call it PIS and CIS, if you want), then yeah, the US might well win. But in a bloodlust on, CIS/PIS off scenario, China can simply zergrush without a care for how many units they lose, simply because they'd lose a prolonged war, so it's in their interest to just launch a crushingly huge offensive right away, without worrying about losses... and even the mighty US army can't take such a monstrous humanwave tactic even though their tech is superior to China's, not when the Chinese just plain don't care how much they lose.



The numbers advantage is meaningless because the army is the least effective branch of a military in modern warfare if you're looking to destroy an enemy nation rather than occupy it. The USA could win this without setting foot in China, simply by blockading it with their navy and dropping bombs and chemical warfare across the country.

The People's Liberation Army can't do a damned thing against that, no matter how many people they have.



> It's pretty much the one sound tactic the Chinese can use in this scenario - overwhelming offense in spite of losses. Which they can afford thanks, again, to numbers. After all, if their pilots won't come back anyway, no need for them to be well trained... all they need is to be able to unload once and preferably crash on the enemy.



Which is again not as easy as you make it sound. When you have a bunch of pilots in inferior planes heading against maybe even twice their number in superior planes (aka no Zerg Rush) you're going to catch an ass-whooping.

And just as with your herp-derp "breed like rabbits to make more soldiers" comment, you can't just make a jet fighter pilot overnight. It takes months, if not years to get a civilian to become a competent fighter pilot, and time is certainly not something China would have in this scenario.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> I know that the US has more airplanes. That's why I said the main thing for the Chinese would be REDUCE THEIR AIRFORCE. Not win in the air - INFLICT AS MUCH DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE PERIOD. With enough damage dealt to the enemy's airforce, their bombing capabilities, as you yourself pointed out, will be greatly reduced, and bombing tends not to work too well when the enemy outnumbers you on ground and you don't have enough airforce left for effective strikes.
> 
> The whole point of my tl;dr was to stress the Chinese don't need to *win* in the air, they just need to decently mess your own airforce up. Without a very strong airside, they can make their ground superiority count.
> 
> It's more or less the same reason (under different conditions) why the US eventually pulled out of Vietnam - they had an intact airforce, yes, but no real way to effectively bomb, so their air superioity's effect on the conflict was significantly reduced. And on ground, we all know how it went - despite the much greater losses the enemy sustained, you were eventually forced to get out because even if your soldiers survived, they were so traumatized by the enemy's total disregard for life they came back... wrong in the head and pretty much useless from a military standpoint. I haven't met a single Vietnam war veteran that is sane, myself...



Uh...okay, so China tries to inflict as much damage as possible on US airpower. Alright then, decent enough strategy if you're suicidal enough. The only problem is that this won't actually be very much damage at all, because China's air capability is _nowhere close_ to the US's. If China was ridiculously lucky and the US was being absolutely Zapp Brannigan-level stupid, the US would STILL be left with over 50% of its bomber and fighter forces, more than enough to level every Chinese city to the consistency of minced garlic.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 27, 2010)

> Because the USA holds itself to a higher standard than the insurgents and thus doesn't do stuff like "bomb the entire neighbourhood to rubble in case there's a terrorist there"



I could quote several instances where the US bombed something more or less blindly because they thought there were insurgents, and instead ended up killing civilians - a particularly high profile incident of that kind was them bombing a freaking MARRIAGE in Afghanistan, killing both bride and groom and about 30 other people who were there... and the insurgents weren't even in the same town, let alone that location. Moreover, it was known a marriage was to be held in that town, so they can't (and in fact, didn't even try to) deny knowledge of it. Although the half assed 'sorry' to the relatives of the victims wasn't nearly enough to cover it...

And let's overlook the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, shall we? Higher standard, my foot. When in war, both sides suck shit (otherwise they wouldn't be at war to begin with), but the side that wins gets to make itself look like the good guys. It's always been that way.

And that's all I'll say in this topic, lest I devolve in a rant on why war is a pointless waste of time and nations who think it'll solve their problems need to have their leaders lined up and summarily shot until a leader with common sense pops up. Without exception or excuse.

War is never the answer. It's just the excuse to keep the spiral of pointless violence going. And to sell weapons, from SOME people's PoV.

Later, all.


----------



## supreme91 (Apr 27, 2010)

1 million civilians killed in Iraq  out of a total of 27 million Iraqis. Must suck to live there.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> I could quote several instances where the US bombed something more or less blindly because they thought there were insurgents, and instead ended up killing civilians - a particularly high profile incident of that kind was them bombing a freaking MARRIAGE in Afghanistan, killing both bride and groom and about 30 other people who were there... and the insurgents weren't even in the same town, let alone that location. Moreover, it was known a marriage was to be held in that town, so they can't (and in fact, didn't even try to) deny knowledge of it. Although the half assed 'sorry' to the relatives of the victims wasn't nearly enough to cover it...



And do you not agree that if USA really wanted to, they could level the whole of Baghdad fairly easily and just garrison a fort on the rubble that's far more defensible than a section of a city with 5 million inhabitants?



> And let's overlook the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, shall we? Higher standard, my foot. When in war, both sides suck shit (otherwise they wouldn't be at war to begin with), but the side that wins gets to make itself look like the good guys. It's always been that way.



No need to overlook them, and they are fairly disgusting atrocities, but my point was this: That if the USA was Bloodlusted, they could fairly easily have bombed the whole of Iraq to the stone age and simply left it like that, to get a victory with miniscule casualties on their side - your argument that the USA is terrible on the defensive doesn't hold up to scrutiny because the USA isn't fighting as hard as we all know it could.



> And that's all I'll say in this topic, lest I devolve in a rant on why war is a pointless waste of time and nations who think it'll solve their problems need to have their leaders lined up and summarily shot until a leader with common sense pops up. Without exception or excuse.
> 
> War is never the answer. It's just the excuse to keep the spiral of pointless violence going. And to sell weapons, from SOME people's PoV.
> 
> Later, all.



No, how about you actually stick to debating the topic at hand instead of going off into an anti-war rant? It's not that difficult to do.

How does China or Russia beat bloodlusted USA in a war, by your estimation? This "gotta leave or I'll go off-topic lol" nonsenes looks like nothing more than a cop-out answer from you.


----------



## supreme91 (Apr 27, 2010)

The US will stomp, just look at our total military spending compared to everyone else  .


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Apr 27, 2010)

@IWD and Watchman. I was not aware that they are bloodlusted, I thought it would be a more common war between two countries which U.S economy would not be able to handle. But if they are bloodlusted than I agree that U.S using their superior tech can just level all of China before they do much. Chinese would need some years of heavy production to come close to American tech and deplete American economy but if bloodlusted American has to much of an arsenal that can inflict heavy damage in the beginning.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> In fact, the Chinese would be more likely to bomb/gas/horribly kill their own troops engaged with yours just to destroy yours as well. They can afford a 3:1 kill ratio. You can't.



they have more people then their own industry and money can buy and make tanks

and with a food blockade (which is a reality) China will be loosing that advantage within a few years..it's a sad reality that they can't even grow enough soy with the US and Argentinas help...to feed their people (the two nations supplied 80% of chinas grain..Uraguay and Chile now supply them with the rest)



Lucifeller said:


> ]If you start using the 'bomb the shit out of everything' logic, nothing prevents China from doing the same.



they have no meaningful way to even remotely affect us in any capacity in terms of attempting to invade



Lucifeller said:


> If bloodlust is assumed on, they would neither bother with defense nor care about losses



uhh no blood lust means fighting the fullest extent of your abilities to kill

it does not mean "spontainously act like a pack of retards
" especially when CIS if off

what your describing is pure idiocy..the fight did not stipulate America or China would suddenly loose their minds 

War scenarios have never played out that way as far as I've seen and should never 


Lucifeller said:


> - they'd just keep pushing, and there's simply no way the US could stand their ground, since China is a horrible field to meet a superior-numbers army on - no bottlenecks to stop larger numbers with a small force (it's mostly plains and half deserted areas, the best you get is rivers), not enough mountains and on top of that the Chinese are used to being in a very bad tactical position and still making do with it.




there will be no invasion of China until at least half the population is dead...and the other half is starving to death

there will be no Chinese invasion of America...as they will be utterly destroyed before penetrating our defenses 



Lucifeller said:


> At that point, with both nations committed to all out assault, numbers start to matter. Each side can and will inflict massive losses on the other if they simply forget about defense and throw everything at each other, but the Chinese have enough numbers that their survivors will still be a lot more than yours. Neither country will be in any shape to continue the war, but there'll be no american army anymore, while the Chinese will just do the usual breed like rabbits thing they do and rebuild their soldier force within a couple years. That's the advantage of having over a third of the current world populace - although projections indicate that India will have more inhabitants than China by 2050...



your not describing  a realistic situation by any means...once again Chinas superior numbers have never ever helped them ever in any way against an enemy with superior technology or tactical leadership

this is a historical reality that can't be ignored..

secondly what Watchmen said Chinas dying almost as fast as Eruope and Russia

the US is expected to have a higher birth rate then China in a few years..and we're barely at half their number

Africas birth rate shits on any where in Asia 



Lucifeller said:


> If you are committed to full frontal assault, exactly why would you bother defending?


what Retard commits himself to a full frontal assualt when his enemy can't touch him...when he has the superior industry and technology...when he feeds about forty percent of the population...and to make matters worse dominates every major trade route (air sea and politics) and can force other countries who support the rest of the nations food supply into line with a blockade

no a blood lusted thinking with your head enemy..is going to sit back behind his nearly invulnerable defenses..slowly *starve* the enemy population to death

while leveling their cities and factories and industry with bombs

in fact a blood lusted US would likely not land any single troops into Chinese land for about ten years into the war..and just poison bomb and starve china the whole time

and there is absolutely nothing China could do to stop it thats the disparity..between the two



Lucifeller said:


> The goal isn't to retain air superiority or anything klike that, the goal is to inflict as much damage as possible,



and the best way to do that is to use other means then direct force...for the time being...and its a reality that the US would do that..especially blood lusted

this isn't an anime or a comic..there will be no..direct man to man..gar combat

this is gonna be nasty bastardry of the highest magnitude every witnessed as the most powerful nation in the world...decimates the second strongest..and does so for the most part

by using..blockades politics and bombs 



Lucifeller said:


> preferably 100% or more, on the enemy army before they do the same to you. What defense?



sorry but thats not even remotely realistic or even a sane thing to do in  a situation like this 


Lucifeller said:


> Total, ruthless aggression is what I'm talking about.



what your describing  is how baboons..and monkeys street fight..over turf in the wild and in human cities in some parts of the world

what watchmen and I are descirbing is exactly how blood lusted nations in real life..do things

and how they'll be done here as per rl example because that's exactly how a real war is fought with blood lust on...and has been since..the dawn of human history

in fact China vs the US is gonna end up allot the final punic war against Carthage

with most of  Carthage dying of hunger before the actual bashing warfare starts

@heavy dis be blood lusted all matches are assumed such as defeault...but as for your build up scenario is good is good

but one issue the Americas supply close to eighty percent of Chinas food supply..if the US just pulled a blockade..the country would loose at least sixty percent of that over night (only the more leftist nations wouldn't cave immediately to a US blockade) so a Chinese military build up better be done with out satellite  and spy plane notice or foods gonna become a might scarce


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Apr 27, 2010)

> @heavy dis be blood lusted all matches are assumed such as defeault...but as for your build up scenario is good is good
> 
> but one issue the Americas supply close to eighty percent of Chinas food supply..if the US just pulled a blockade..the country would loose at least sixty percent of that over night (only the more leftist nations wouldn't cave immediately to a US blockade) so a Chinese military build up better be done with out satellite and spy plane notice or foods gonna become a might scarce



Not really it is actually the other way around. The country China exports to the most is the United States, China gets most of their imports from Japan. China being the largest steel producer in the world is a good advantage when it comes to build up. China having U.S as an enemy will negatively effect both of their economies but China being an experienced isolationist can manage without it. The United states trade deficit with China has numbered over 300 billion these past years. For some of the years it was the largest deficit U.S has ever experienced in trading. That is why their economy is at a much more fragile state.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 27, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Not really it is actually the other way around. The country China exports to the most is the United States, China gets most of their imports from Japan. China being the largest steel producer in the world is a good advantage when it comes to build up. China having U.S as an enemy will negatively effect both of their economies but China being an experienced isolationist can manage without it. The United states trade deficit with China has numbered over 300 billion these past years. For some of the years it was the largest deficit U.S has ever experienced in trading. That is why their economy is at a much more fragile state.



Food heavy food..China cannot feed itself with out the Americas food and medicine are more important then anything else..especially for a country who's living conditions are so awful they cannot survive with out latin America and the US supplying them with food

and the debts not relevant in a war the us goes "FUCK YOU..I'm defaulting bitches" 

Chinas economy exists only because of te US and Europe if either nation said fuck you china you kill baby girls..and are physcos we're going to some other country"

they'd be fucked...its far more fragile then the US saying other wise is simply not true...its utterly dependent on the west


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Since my amigos already crushed all of this, I am inclined to not reply, but...I want to anyway 



Orochibuto said:


> Why cant you accept USA isnt invincible neither the best country in the world (no country really qualify for this position)? I like my country but I wont say is the best in the world, thats absurd


It's not invincible... It's just impossible to beat at a one-on-one any time in the near future.



KurouKetsu said:


> pure fucking win.


Read: Liberty _Fucking_ Prime 



Orochibuto said:


> Pure fucking nation-fanboyism if you ask me, capitalism is a way better option than communism but is FAR from perfect


Somebody doesn't get the joke 
/slowpoke



axiaelements said:


> Capitalism only differs from slavery in one way: You have to feed your slaves... Think about that.


You're an idiot... Capitalism actually _discourages_ slavery. Capitalism revolves around more efficient workers making more efficient products. Free people are more motivated than slaves as are they more educated on average, meaning that they can make more profit and advancement.

True capitalism is the world's strongest argument against slavery....



heavy_rasengan said:


> What do you mean no duh? You were the one implying Germany had a chance to begin with.


Because simultaneously fighting the three greatest world powers at the same time outside of themselves (which, at the onset of the war, was the single most powerful nation in the world) was a stupid decision. If they had taken them on singly,  then Germany could have won the war...seeing as early on in the war they were raping all three powers left and right.....



heavy_rasengan said:


> U.S joining the war was inevitable. It would have eventually joined with or without pearl harbor.


Not at all. Hell, if the Japanese had waited just two or three years, it would have been a done deal. Not to mention that Germany could just have, as it did with Russia, just betray Japan and either leave it alone or attack it.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Again, mimicking technology is not as hard as your putting it out to be.


You obviously have _no_ idea how reverse engineering works. At all. Back during the Korean war, a Korean pilot defected and brought back to an American Air Force base a MiG-15. The USAF proceeded to break it down and reverse engineer it. You know how long that took? About one or two years, of the best engineers on the planet, all working together to reverse engineer a MiG-15. The MiG-15 was a _very_ primitive plane compared to what we have now. 

Furthermore, the basis for the MiG-15 was similar to the ones used by the US back then (as they were both derivative of German aircraft in their basest forms). The Chinese are 20+ years behind us in terms of technology, they don't possess a lot of the bases that we use to build our aircraft on. It would take _years_ just to break down the aircraft and understand its components, even more to learn how to manufacture it efficiently. And even after that it would take _at least_ a few months to run trials and make sure that the aircraft doesn't fall apart on takeoff.



heavy_rasengan said:


> If China raises their spending to 500 billion they will catch up no time especially with a labor force of such a quantity.


What does the labor force have to do with it? 500 billion is 500 billion, no matter what your labor force. What does that 500 billion go into? Alloys research, weapons research, ballistics research, stealth research, etc. etc. R&D is _vastly_ different from manufacturing, whereas in manufacturing a very large labor force can make a huge difference, in R&D the 500 billion actually functions less well the more you split it. There has to be a _balance_ between laborers and funds.



heavy_rasengan said:


> No fucking surprise that their technology is booming but it isnt something another superpower cant copy, especially one of China's caliber.


But you're dismissing the fact that it would take _years._



heavy_rasengan said:


> So what the fuck does that have to do with anything. They will obviously not be fielded in battle because China is replacing all of them.


How long do you think that will take you ninny? _Years._ _Decades._ It takes a _long_ time to replace over 4000 tanks because it is expensive and manufacturing of modern tanks is much harder.



heavy_rasengan said:


> In WWII countries produced tens of thousands of tanks in a mere year.


You're dismissing that that was in WWII. When tanks were _drastically_ cheaper, simpler, faster to build, and even "cutting edge" tanks were rather simplistic.



heavy_rasengan said:


> In the modern world China has the money and manpower to outnumber the Americans. Sorry, an Abram is not taking out 5 96s, each of which are more cost efficient as well.


Except that we have more Abrams than they have tanks. _Period_. We have over 9000 Abrams in total. They have about 7,5000 tanks in total. To top it off, we have a _large_ fleet of attack helicopters and close air support aircraft that are meant to shit, especially, on tanks.



heavy_rasengan said:


> The United States economy is shaking when dealing with mere third world countries and you expect them to handle China? That was my point.


I've already explained it like three or four times. You _cannot_ aliken fighting terrorists to fighting full scale countries. It is a _vastly_ different situation.



heavy_rasengan said:


> So fucking what? China is not DEPENDENT on the United States,


We stop supplying them, a lot of South America stops supplying them. They starve.



heavy_rasengan said:


> sure their revenues will fall but it wont make any substantial difference considering they will just start importing MORE from other countries. U.S is not the country China imports the most from.


The US and its Allies....



heavy_rasengan said:


> China has been an isolationist for a very long period of time, they can manage without American imports.


Isolationists? Since when? It's been decades since that. Modern China can't even feed it's people without foreign imports. So....starvation>>>>China's population.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Thats not the point. That shows how fragile U.S economy is.


No, it doesn't. It shows how _powerful_ our economy is. The fact that we can invade a country, completely and utterly destroy it and its military, and then make it into one of the richest countries in the world.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Worked for Russia didnt it


WTF?! Russia has _never_ forced a draft onto all of its population. Ever. It has never even come close to doing that. Hell, _no_ country in the world, could _ever_ support such a military. Not the US, China, and Russia combined could currently support an army of a few hundred _million_.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Wtf are you going on about? When the fuck did I say China would draft that many people, that is the stupid shit ever. It only shows what they are capable. What fucking country drafts 600 million people? Even 10 percent of that is DEADLY.


Then you should understand that of those 600 million people fit for service, the large majority will not see action.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Oh ok so the American technology is not a basis to build upon Lets see, a country with more than one billion inhabitants in a state of war would produce it damn fast.


No, they don't have the basis upon which American technology is built upon to replicate that technology. It is akin to trying to build an exact copy of the Parthenon...but not knowing what the hell a column is....

Regardless of it's population, it is _impossible_ to build something without a base to build upon. China doesn't have that foundation, and it would take years just to reverse engineer those bases, let alone the whole thing.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Im calling you a fool because you obviously are one. T-34 design was 1937-1940.


Before Russia was invaded, btw.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> If you had any hint of intellect you would know that the point i was making about all of these being build during WWII was how fast it takes to do so.


Production and R&D are two _vastly_ different things. Production is the easy and quick part, R&D is the hard part.



heavy_rasengan said:


> 3 years is fucking fast.


The Sherman was designed in about a year as well...but you're ignoring that those are, by modern standards, _very_ primitive machines. With all that goes into modern tanks, what do you think it takes? Back then it was almost solely a mechanical design. Today? Electronics, GPSs, control systems, tracking systems, etc, etc, etc.



heavy_rasengan said:


> No tank has been an entirely new model since WWI....


Bullshit. The only thing that has remained about those WWI tanks is that they are treaded models with a single cannon, which is taken from a French tank model. But tanks have changed a _lot_ since WWI. They are _completely_ new models.



heavy_rasengan said:


> Also if you havent noticed 1940 is a year after WWII began and I said DURING WWII regardless if a country is at war or not.


WWII started in 1937...so...you're comparing what a country like the US could do in 1937 when it was at peace....to what it could do once the war had started?



heavy_rasengan said:


> Um, yes they were able to outproduce because they sat on their ass for 4 years selling weapons to the whole world. Everyone knows that U.S ticket out of the depression was WWII. So your point is actually mooot.


Sat on their asses? They carried out extensive weapons research and gave out said weapons to their allies away for _free_. It wasn't until _after_ the war that they asked for the money, which is why it was called a _Lend, Lease_ plan.



heavy_rasengan said:


> @watchman Since when does 600 million people being fit for war equate to a country using 600 million people in an army? That is ridiculous and completely idiotic but what is even more ridiculous is that less than 5 percent of that is more than enough.


You're idiotic.... By bringing up the 600 million men you implied that China would use them....

Furthermore, do you understand _anything_ about logistics?? Not that the numbers would matter much, since they would most likely be relegated to meager light infantry, well supplied infantry _if_ they are lucky and China has the supplies.



Lucifeller said:


> Yes, because a communist country that regularly breaks the Geneva convention and is KNOWN for having chemical weapons wouldn't respond in tune. Right?


Except that the wouldn't be able to since... All their population is now dead?? And if they tried to send aircraft at us to do the same we'd just shoot them down before they ever got within several thousand miles of the US??



Lucifeller said:


> In fact, the Chinese would be more likely to bomb/gas/horribly kill their own troops engaged with yours just to destroy yours as well. They can afford a 3:1 kill ratio. You can't.


And then they are overthrown by their own people.....

You _do_ know that their are _intra_national side effects to bombing your own people in addition to international ones too? Your people tend to hate you and revolt against you when you start gassing your armies en-masse just to defeat the enemy...which is why no country has ever done it to such a scale...ever....



Lucifeller said:


> If you start using the 'bomb the shit out of everything' logic, nothing prevents China from doing the same.


That their planes would never reach the continental US???


Lucifeller said:


> If bloodlust is assumed on, they would neither bother with defense nor care about losses - they'd just keep pushing, and there's simply no way the US could stand their ground, since China is a horrible field to meet a superior-numbers army on


We have drastically more fighters than they do... Hell, we have almost as many fighters as they have fighters and bombers _combined_, if not more. Oh, and the funniest part, a large sum of our aircraft are superior. They couldn't bomb us, they could never land on the US, they have _no_ way of reaching us!



Lucifeller said:


> no bottlenecks to stop larger numbers with a small force (it's mostly plains and half deserted areas, the best you get is rivers), not enough mountains and on top of that the Chinese are used to being in a very bad tactical position and still making do with it.


They are use to it on their _own_ home turf, a _very_ different situation to being in a completely foreign and alien place that you don't know shit about....



Lucifeller said:


> At that point, with both nations committed to all out assault, numbers start to matter.


Not really.... Seeing as we still have a huge technological advantage and better and more armor, aircraft, etc....



Lucifeller said:


> Each side can and will inflict massive losses on the other if they simply forget about defense and throw everything at each other,


Wow...Just wow.... Forget about defense? No, not at all. Wars are both offensive _and_ defensive confrontations. You give up on defense? Then your population centers are slaughtered and you lose any possible recruitment pool. You also lose your factories and can no longer produce...anything. And, you also lose your military bases. Great job! You have just lost the war!



Lucifeller said:


> but the Chinese have enough numbers that their survivors will still be a lot more than yours.


And we have technology to ensures that doesn't happen :thumb



Lucifeller said:


> Neither country will be in any shape to continue the war, but there'll be no american army anymore,


If anything, we will actually have a _larger_ army by the end of such a conflict, with a few drafts and many volunteers joining and whatnot.



Lucifeller said:


> while the Chinese will just do the usual breed like rabbits thing they do and rebuild their soldier force within a couple years.


Wow...you obviously don't understand logistics in war or outside...

That will still take _decades_. And there would be _massive_ starvation after such a war because most of your farms and fields have been destroyed in the fighting and whatnot. _And_ you will have nearly no infrastructure. _And_ your cities will be in chaos. Simply breeding like rabbits? That won't work because a shattered country wouldn't be able to handle it!



Lucifeller said:


> That's the advantage of having over a third of the current world populace - although projections indicate that India will have more inhabitants than China by 2050...


Lolwhat? China has about a _quarter_ of the world's populace, at _most_. A third?? Byaahhhahaah!!!



Lucifeller said:


> ...
> 
> Protect... your bombers?


How??? They'll get shot down by our larger and superior airforce long before they reach the US.



Lucifeller said:


> If you are committed to full frontal assault, exactly why would you bother defending?


So you don't lose your chain of command, population, cities, factories, and military bases to a country whose mainland you will never reach to begin with??



Lucifeller said:


> The goal isn't to retain air superiority or anything klike that


A lesson from WWII=As _soon_ as you lose air superiority, you lose the war. Aircraft>>>>>>>>>>>>Land Weaponry&Navies. The only thing that could actually effectively counter modern aircraft is SAMs....and B-2>>>>>>>>>>>>>SAMs.



Lucifeller said:


> the goal is to inflict as much damage as possible, preferably 100% or more


And yet the method they would actually cost the _most_ damage is by allowing us to invade them 



Lucifeller said:


> on the enemy army before they do the same to you. What defense? Total, ruthless aggression is what I'm talking about.


No defense=More casualties.



Lucifeller said:


> The reason why the US have so much trouble with terrorists is precisely because they don't follow conventional rules of war. They simply aim to cause as much damage as possible, regardless of their own survival.


Except that china=/=terrorists.



Lucifeller said:


> And judging by how many US soldiers regularly buy the farm due to ONE suicide bomber/carbomb/stray mortar shot, it's bloody effective.


Except it is _impossible_ for large scale armies to function in the same way that terrorists do. The reason terrorists work so well is because there are relatively few of them surrounded by large masses of civies. We can't hurt the civies, since our war is not with the country, but during an all out war we _would_ attack cities and population masses, like we did in WWII.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> The US army has proven repeatedly during this pointless 'war on terrior' that they are totally awesome at fighting openly, but when the enemy stops caring about losses and just wants to cause damage and death, they become a lot less efficient - 95% of losses by the US army were experienced AFTER the supposed war ended, and most of them were a terrible ratio for the States (one terrorist exploded equaled at least half a dozen of theior soldiers dead or severely wounded).


The only issue being that during these conflicts occuring right now we are trying to avoid civilian casualties since we are not fighting the actual country but the terrorists. Now, if we fought China, then....



Lucifeller said:


> That's the reason why I find the whole concept of 'maintaining air superiority' funny. You assume that the enemy would play straight in your strengths, when in fact, both sides are supposed bloodlusted, which does mean China is a lot more likely to just send wave after wave, regardless of how many losses they take, because if they can cause even a 2:1 ratio loss against you, it's a success.


Lolwut? We have more aircraft than they do. We have more fighters than they do planes in their airforce period! _We_ have the 2:1 advantage! Not them! _And_ we have better planes, in larger numbers, _and_ serviceable 5th Gen aircraft like the F-22 that beat _any_ plane they have.



Lucifeller said:


> And ruthless aggression without regard for life has been a tactic that has REPEATEDLY succeeded against the US army, simply because they aren't equipped for dealing with it.


Lolwhat? No, the only time that things like that have worked have been in Guerilla warfare, under _vastly_ different conditions. For example, our weaponry wasn't suited for Vietnam, our tanks were too big and bulky to function there, and the enemy knew the land better and could exploit it and guerillas wrecked havoc. They hid and it was hard to find them. Now, if we had had Apaches in Vietnam, or even efficient forms of thermal visions in Vietnam.... Then we would have won pretty easily...



Lucifeller said:


> There's plenty of grieving families that can attest to it. And with that kind of tactic, a country with millions of expendable soldiers is pretty much the worst possible matchup you could ask for.


Except that guerilla warfare does _not_ work when you include huge armies. Guerilla operations are _only_ effective in small scale, for obvious reason as well.



Lucifeller said:


> I'm not saying it's a sound strategy,


It isn't.



Lucifeller said:


> but it is very effective in severely crippling any invading forces, and it's one tactic where numbers pay off in spades. All China really needs to do is inflict as much damage to your airforce


Give up, it doesn't have the airforce or hardware, in numbers or quality, to even phase ours.



Lucifeller said:


> and ground hardware, which they don't necessarily need to survive the mission to do.


We have more tanks, artie, and etc, than they do.



Lucifeller said:


> A suicide run deep in enemy lines can cause as much havoc as any other tactic





Lucifeller said:


> and if your planes are busy bombing the Chinese mainland


Except..we have bombers for that. Stealth Bombers that can pass entire countries undetected, bomb you, and dissapear without you know what hit you. The B-2 can do, single handedly, what previously took almost 10-30 aircraft to do because bombers were so vulnerable and hard to use against modern aircraft. A B-2, with 2-3 F-22s (it doesn't even really need them, but, I'mma humor you) as escorts can go through all of China, undetected, and send it back to the stone age.



Lucifeller said:


> your rearlines are left open to an airraid from the flanks,


Not at all. And it doesn't help that _all_ of their aircraft are vulnerable to SAMs....yeah.....



Lucifeller said:


> Now, if this scenario was NOT bloodlust and included real life logic (call it PIS and CIS, if you want), then yeah, the US might well win. But in a bloodlust on, CIS/PIS off scenario, China can simply *zergrush* without a care for how many units they lose,


Okay, now I _know_ you have no idea what you are talking about. Sheer numbers do _not_ equal victory. There are too many examples in history to prove that tactics and technology can overcome numbers.



Lucifeller said:


> so it's in their interest to just launch a crushingly huge offensive right away, without worrying about losses...


And lose all of their airforce and navy and any land troops in them without ever even grazing the states.



Lucifeller said:


> and even the mighty US army can't take such a monstrous humanwave tactic even though their tech is superior to China's, not when the Chinese just plain don't care how much they lose.


We have more aircraft and aircraft>>>>>>ships.



Lucifeller said:


> After all, if their pilots won't come back anyway, no need for them to be well trained... all they need is to be able to unload once and preferably crash on the enemy.


Wow...I  can't stop laughing at you. In the form they are now the _only_ hope China has is in good pilots. Mind you, the US has the best trained pilots in the world, but let's ignore that for a second. Good WWII aces could down Zeros in their Wildcats which were _very_ inferior to the Zeros, China can only hope for the same.



Lucifeller said:


> I know that the US has more airplanes. That's why I said the main thing for the Chinese would be REDUCE THEIR AIRFORCE.


And give air superiority, and therefore, victory, to the US.

Air Superiority=Victory. WWII proved this very, very drastically.



Lucifeller said:


> Not win in the air - INFLICT AS MUCH DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE PERIOD.


They wouldn't do any damage to us, period! Sure, we'd lose some plain, but only a small fraction of what they have.



Lucifeller said:


> With enough damage dealt to the enemy's airforce, their bombing capabilities, as you yourself pointed out, will be greatly reduced


They would inflict very little damage to our airforce.....



Lucifeller said:


> and bombing tends not to work too well *when the enemy outnumbers you on ground* and you don't have enough airforce left for effective strikes.


Lolwhat??? Bombing works _best_ when there are plenty of ground targets. Especially when you're a stealth aircraft a few thousand feet up in the air.



Lucifeller said:


> The whole point of my tl;dr was to stress the Chinese don't need to *win* in the air,


Yes, they _do_. WWII proved that the _only_ way to win a modern, large scale engagment was to win the airs. Having the sky means having judgement over everything below it. Air Power>>>>Everything else. This is why any modern Navy worth a damn is aero-centric, focusing _solely_ on Aircraft, Supercarriers, and a few fodder ships meant to protect them that mainly only serve AA purposes as well, because the aircraft are their for the ships anyway.



Lucifeller said:


> they just need to decently mess your own airforce up. Without a very strong airside, they can make their ground superiority count.


Which they won't do.



Lucifeller said:


> It's more or less the same reason (under different conditions) why the US eventually pulled out of Vietnam - they had an intact airforce, yes, but no real way to effectively bomb,


You're comparing two _drastically_ different scenarios. During Vietnam we randomly bombed because we didn't even know where the Vietcong hid. We couldn't see them, so we just littered bombs. This is a _drastically_ different situation. Hell, we have thermal vision now, so even if they _do_ retreat into the forest, we can track them and destroy them.



Lucifeller said:


> And on ground, we all know how it went - despite the much greater losses the enemy sustained, you were eventually forced to get out because even if your soldiers survived,


Yet we were still owning on the ground, despite what an overdramatic media told you. By a lot.



Lucifeller said:


> they were so traumatized by the enemy's total disregard for life they came back... wrong in the head and pretty much useless from a military standpoint.


Which didn't happen in WWII to a much larger scale? War traumitices you, its a fact of war. The only difference being that Vietnam was a relatively small skirmish for the US, and as such, a few cases tend to stand out more.



Lucifeller said:


> I haven't met a single Vietnam war veteran that is sane, myself...


Then you need to get out more. The large _majority_ of Vietnam vets are fine. Sure, some might be crippled and a lot are angst about that pay they never got, but the large majority are psychologically fine...well, as fine as you can be after a war.



RockpiRate said:


> ok..then Russia


Liberty Prime


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Not really it is actually the other way around. The country China exports to the most is the United States, China gets most of their imports from Japan.


Food. Food. Food.

People can't live without food, Chinese or not. 

And most of their food comes from the US or its allies.



heavy_rasengan said:


> China being the largest steel producer in the world is a good advantage when it comes to build up.


Steel=/=Military.

What do you need to make a modern military? Things like gold and other precious (used in circuits used by everything from tanks to aircraft) metals which the US provides quite a bit of to China. Things like satellites for GPS systems that are used on almost every vehicle, intelligence, etc; this is a field in which the US is unmatched, btw. You also need food. Haha! FOOD! Food to feed your soldiers and keep them alive. Food which...China can't produce by itself and most of which is supplied by the US and it's Allies.



heavy_rasengan said:


> China having U.S as an enemy will negatively effect both of their economies but China being an experienced isolationist can manage without it.


Hahahaha. The US is more used to being an isolationist country in an industrial world than China. Without the US, China will starve. Without China...the US can still do almost everything by itself and with its allies.



heavy_rasengan said:


> The United states trade deficit with China has numbered over 300 billion these past years. For some of the years it was the largest deficit U.S has ever experienced in trading. That is why their economy is at a much more fragile state.


A deficit we won't ever have to pay back once we win.

Wall of text FTW!!!


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Also, just because:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_EsoMsfbM[/YOUTUBE]
Liberty Prime solos 

*DEMOCRACY, IS NONNEGOTIABLE!*


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 27, 2010)

China has virtually no silver left..nor gold its so rare they have to purchase it from outside sources

in fact that shit is so fucking rare over there and precious Chinas authorizing their own citizens to buy and own it (to try and create a bigger influx into the country)

China may produce many of the goods for the Us plastics especially silicon but all of the Raw materials are *important *

if the US did a precious metal blockade as well as a food one...and OIL freaking oil 

China would be absolutely fucked there goes the food..there goes your software r and d  because that shits vital a raw material ban..completely destroys their ability to produce..for other countries..cheap goods...and thus destroy their economy in a few months

a hunger crises starts in a year..

maybe Heavy/lucy you guys aren't factoring just how utterly at the mercy of their clients the Chinese economy is if shit really got serious China would deflate just like that 

also to the guy that said Capitlaism is  slavery..why is that manual labor is so fucking cheap in communist countries then?

and in the US laborers are protected by all sorts of fucking laws and Unions and shit..and oh yeah

HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE THE PISS OUT OF THEIR EMPLOYERS...or find another job


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Watchdog, that is why trust in Liberty Prime, we must. :Yoda


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 27, 2010)

Gah, this one I MUST answer.



> And then they are overthrown by their own people.....
> 
> You do know that their are intranational side effects to bombing your own people in addition to international ones too? Your people tend to hate you and revolt against you when you start gassing your armies en-masse just to defeat the enemy...which is why no country has ever done it to such a scale...ever....



...

In case you forgot...

BLOODLUST IS ON.

That is all I will say, because it really is enough to throw a monstrous wrench in your reasoning here. Think about what the default OBD rules mean in a large scale offensive like this one. In case you forgot, it's PIS CIS off and bloodlust on, meaning both sides' commanders are implied to have 100% approval and their forces are in total enemy kill mode.

Which is how team fights here in the OBD are treated under those rules, btw. I've never seen anyone complain about how nuking your own allies if it wins the entire fight is bad PR in team fights before... the fact you use such an excuse is depressing.


----------



## Nihilistic (Apr 27, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Watchdog, that is why trust in Liberty Prime, we must. :Yoda



We must and we will :WOW 

Failure is not an option.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller, why did you ignore my last post?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Gah, this one I MUST answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I was assuming that Bloodlust in national terms referred to the people who fought and controlled the wars...politicians and generals, not actual civilians and soldiers who are literally just pawns, but fine. And while I do not see where they say bloodlust is on:



jedijohn said:


> If biological warfare and chemical warfare are as bad as nuclear warfare, no weapons of mass destruction period.



It's a non-issue anyway.



Lucifeller said:


> That is all I will say, because it really is enough to throw a monstrous wrench in your reasoning here. Think about what the default OBD rules mean in a large scale offensive like this one. In case you forgot, it's PIS CIS off and bloodlust on, meaning both sides' commanders are implied to have 100% approval and their forces are in total enemy kill mode.


PIS/CIS?? Responding to your government massacarring its own people is CIS/PIS??? Fine, if you say so....



Lucifeller said:


> Which is how team fights here in the OBD are treated under those rules, btw. I've never seen anyone complain about how nuking your own allies if it wins the entire fight is bad PR in team fights before... the fact you use such an excuse is depressing.


I don't even need it. Here, I'll even explain it for you. How do they deliver it when they don't have air superiority? Because they won't, 'ya know?

Artillery will be the only feasible way of doing so. American Artillery has superior ranges to that which the Chinese have, and and their own positions are vulnerable to air strikes which we can carry out easily.

And, last but not least, most modern US troops have been trained and have easy access to, due to the terrorist problems and their favor of chemical weapons, things like gas mask and equipment to combat chem warfare.



Nihilistic said:


> We must and we will :WOW
> 
> Failure is not an option.


Yes, Communism is most definitely not an option.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 27, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Gah, this one I MUST answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



blood lust means a character uses everything in his arsenal to go for the kill

that is exactly what we're describing

your not describing bloodlust..your describing an act of utter stupidity...and madness and it *will* not go down the way your suggesting it


also for those who think China can survive fine with out Latin American and American Grain and beef

they recently had an epidemic of black plague..because even with all the food we sell..some people are still so fucking desperate that these poor bastards are eating sewer rats and hunting rodents in the woods

entire fucking cities had been quarantined for medical treatment 

how the fuck would China not fall apart..from such a heavy blockade jesus


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Watchdog, even if he does have it his way, I've already shown him how it won't work out.

Actually, I just had a funny thought... Since the Commanche was tested and pretty much completed for the most part but just didn't go into production...we are also about an assembly line away from having Stealth _Helicopters_.


----------



## Knight (Apr 27, 2010)

I think Britain and Russia will posse a threat.


----------



## LazyWaka (Apr 27, 2010)

Isn't america currently making actual laser weapons now (saw it on the military channel, though it said it was only ready for being fitted on large planes.)


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Knight said:


> I think Britain and Russia will posse a threat.



Britain's military is actually tiny and crappy..... And Russia, while definitely a high-class military still suffers from a lot of outdated systems and general inferiority to US tech.



waka0793 said:


> Isn't america currently making actual laser weapons now (saw it on the military channel, though it said it was only ready for being fitted on large planes.)



Those are anti-ICBM lasers. They are also working on portable lasers (Point Defense Lasers) for the F-35 and those are probably gonna be mounted on the F-22 as well, those are lasers meant to shoot down missiles by the way. Also under research is active camouflage for stealth aircraft and it may be adapted to armor on the ground as well.


----------



## Sylar (Apr 27, 2010)

You know if we wanted to really be dicks, we could just poison some of the food that is imported from another country to China. I know that militarily America has the clear advantage especially in terms of technology (ignoring stupid ZERGRUSH comments because seriously how the hell does China get these people to our shores? Are they going to swim??) but if America wanted to, we could seriously fuck China up through the backdoor (both literally and metaphorically).


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

Sylar said:


> You know if we wanted to really be dicks, we could just poison some of the food that is imported from another country to China. I know that militarily America has the clear advantage especially in terms of technology (ignoring stupid ZERGRUSH comments because seriously how the hell does China get these people to our shores? Are they going to swim??) but if America wanted to, we could seriously fuck China up through the backdoor (both literally and metaphorically).


Even if they Zerg Rush on their own soil while we are occupying, our aircraft will tear them to pieces with their bombs.

High Explosives/Hydrogen Bombs/Fuel Air Bombs/MOABs/Cluster Bombs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Masses of Infantry/Tanks


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 27, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Watchdog, even if he does have it his way, I've already shown him how it won't work out.
> 
> Actually, I just had a funny thought... Since the Commanche was tested and pretty much completed for the most part but just didn't go into production...we are also about an assembly line away from having Stealth _Helicopters_.



stealth helicopters stealth boats new stealth plains..and fucking monstrosity carriers rolling off the lines n a couple years (with one supposedly able to solo most third world countries and developing nations as well)

i feel for china man..really 



paulatreides0 said:


> Britain's military is actually tiny and crappy..... And Russia, while definitely a high-class military still suffers from a lot of outdated systems and general inferiority to US tech.
> .



to be fair a Brittain with its balls back..and a couple years of prep time..while not a major threat in the immediate

would a be shit your pants..scary thing for the world..in a long run especially if the populace committed itself to good ol/school British nationalism 

that'd be a frightening prospect 



Sylar said:


> You know if we wanted to really be dicks, we could just poison some of the food that is imported from another country to China. I know that militarily America has the clear advantage especially in terms of technology (ignoring stupid ZERGRUSH comments because seriously how the hell does China get these people to our shores? Are they going to swim??) but if America wanted to, we could seriously fuck China up through the backdoor (both literally and metaphorically).



that'd be a tactic we'd likely be using just before the food blockade to force China to start burning their food reserves(what little they are) almost immediately


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> stealth boats...


Oh god, I remember those bastards. They weren't outfitted to carry any weaponry, but the Navy is looking to start implementing their design. And, if it ever comes down to it, it wouldn't be too hard to retrofit them to fight. Definitely doesn't help that the Chinese Navy is complete shit.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> and fucking monstrosity carriers rolling off the lines n a couple years (with one supposedly able to solo most third world countries and developing nations as well)


The first Gerald Ford Class rolls out within the next year or two, with two more coming.

And yes, _one_ of those bastards has the capabilities the majority of the world's armies. One can pack over 75 of the most advaned naval aircraft known to man, thats more than the Nizmitz. It can solo entire fleets and airforces relatively easily....



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> to be fair a Brittain with its balls back..and a couple years of prep time..while not a major threat in the immediate


Good point. However, with their tiny island nation, they still wouldn't be able to give much to the fight to the monstrous power that is the US. They lack the tech, and while it would be easier for them to catch up then China, they just don't have the population to take on the US. And they know that all too well.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> would a be shit your pants..scary thing for the world..in a long run especially if the populace committed itself to good ol/school British nationalism


Oh god, if Brits got back to how they were Pre-WWI...


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 27, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Oh god, I remember those bastards. They weren't outfitted to carry any weaponry, but the Navy is looking to start implementing their design. And, if it ever comes down to it, it wouldn't be too hard to retrofit them to fight. Definitely doesn't help that the Chinese Navy is complete shit.



they'd be rolling out with brandnew advanced ones..more stealthy then the previous generation considering they just sold a stealth boat in an auction and advertised its sale on fox news 






paulatreides0 said:


> The first Gerald Ford Class rolls out within the next year or two, with two more coming.



the US is selling a downgraded design to France and England and their building one each but it will be about eight or nine years before they can construct  one

we're gonna have like five in total by 201 supposedly kinda scary the gap there

China supposedly is gonna Construct a few Nimitz class varients now..or was running lip about being able to match the ford class but it was proven bullshit I think 


paulatreides0 said:


> And yes, _one_ of those bastards has the capabilities the majority of the world's armies. One can pack over 75 of the most advaned naval aircraft known to man, thats more than the Nizmitz. It can solo entire fleets and airforces relatively easily....



now the question is..can the Chinese Navy handle even one Gerald Ford class

much less two or three which would likely role out much faster in wartime 



paulatreides0 said:


> Good point. However, with their tiny island nation, they still wouldn't be able to give much to the fight to the monstrous power that is the US. They lack the tech, and while it would be easier for them to catch up then China, they just don't have the population to take on the US. And they know that all too well.



obviously, then again since when was England stupid enough to take on the top dog..directly as opposed so slowly accumulating territory and building up their infrastructure over a period of a century or so like they traditionally did

I like the UK for that reason they where like the Romans they wheren't stupid and they where patient and they knew how to make use of what they had..

something I think America Inherited from them 



paulatreides0 said:


> Oh god, if Brits got back to how they were Pre-WWI...


bingo


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 27, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> they'd be rolling out with brandnew advanced ones..more stealthy then the previous generation considering they just sold a stealth boat in an auction and advertised its sale on fox news


Haha, and _that_ is how you know that there is an even more deadly, stealthier design when the government auctions out stealth boats made up of up of some the most advanced ships in the world. Black Projects ftw.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> the US is selling a downgraded design to France and England and their building one each but it will be about eight or nine years before they can construct  one


What? Where did you hear this? Linky, nao!

I've heard of England and France's own native design. It's a super carrier, but they're being retarded and giving it a diesel engine instead of a nuclear one.

/idiots



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> we're gonna have like five in total by 201 supposedly kinda scary the gap there


Five? No, there are only three that are approved, with 2 more being proposed. The last one is supposed to roll out in 2021, and the first one enters service in 2015, with yet another one in 2018.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> China supposedly is gonna Construct a few Nimitz class varients now..or was running lip about being able to match the ford class but it was proven bullshit I think


Haha, what? No, not at all. They bought an Admiral Kuztenove class Supercarrier from Russia (the unfinished Varyag) and are building only _two_ carriers around that. Which are drastically inferior to the Nizmitz (the Vargyag can only hold ~45, while the Nizmitz could hold 85-90...about twice the aircraft complement.

Oh, and here are some interesting facts on the Ford:



> Advanced arresting gear.
> *Automation, which reduces crew requirements by several hundred from the Nimitz class carrier.*
> *The updated RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile system.*[4]
> AN/SPY-3 dual-band radar (DBR), as developed for Zumwalt class destroyers.
> ...



So, faster, larger, better armored, better armed, stealthier, and able to hold around the same number if not more aircraft than the Nizmitz... Dear fucking god!

I honestly think these monsters should've been named after Raegan.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> now the question is..can the Chinese Navy handle even one Gerald Ford class


Those carriers couldn't handle even one _Nizmitz_ class, let alone the drastically superior Fords.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> much less two or three which would likely role out much faster in wartime


Definitely. We could roll out half a dozen within two or three years if need be.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> obviously, then again since when was England stupid enough to take on the top dog..directly as opposed so slowly accumulating territory and building up their infrastructure over a period of a century or so like they traditionally did


Good point.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> something I think America Inherited from them


Definitely.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> bingo


Liberty Prime!


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 28, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Haha, and _that_ is how you know that there is an even more deadly, stealthier design when the government auctions out stealth boats made up of up of some the most advanced ships in the world. Black Projects ftw.



they've been publicly talking about rail guns for a couple years now but say the power generation is why their not mass produced 

hell I remember ten years ago some one talking about a hand held machine that sort emps your cars/tanks/planes and causes them to shut down

but the army and police didn't wanna use itbecause they feared too much collateral damage I really don't want to think of the stealth stuff 




paulatreides0 said:


> What? Where did you hear this? Linky, nao!



should be there on the wiki or the supercarrier entry Thats where I remember seeing it



paulatreides0 said:


> I've heard of England and France's own native design. It's a super carrier, but they're being retarded and giving it a diesel engine instead of a nuclear one.



yeah that'd actually do more damage to the enviornment ..then a fucking nuclear reactor...christ do they have any clue how much it would cost to fuel a fucking hundred or so thousand ton carrier?



paulatreides0 said:


> Five? No, there are only three that are approved, with 2 more being proposed. The last one is supposed to roll out in 2021, and the first one enters service in 2015, with yet another one in 2018.



you know their gonna approve the other two as soon as the new administration takes over in 2012 bro 




paulatreides0 said:


> Haha, what? No, not at all. They bought an Admiral Kuztenove class Supercarrier from Russia (the unfinished Varyag) and are building only _two_ carriers around that. Which are drastically inferior to the Nizmitz (the Vargyag can only hold ~45, while the Nizmitz could hold 85-90...about twice the aircraft complement.



lol yet we must clearly fear the Chinese

hell Brittan's diesel   powered pinto could probably handle that 


paulatreides0 said:


> Oh, and here are some interesting facts on the Ford:



bad ass you know we got another monster cooking up there





paulatreides0 said:


> ]I honestly think these monsters should've been named after Raegan.



yeah seriously 


paulatreides0 said:


> Those carriers couldn't handle even one _Nizmitz_ class, let alone the drastically superior Fords.



stomp thread




paulatreides0 said:


> Definitely. We could roll out half a dozen within two or three years if need be.



more if we're truly desperate but it'd probably hit us hard 





paulatreides0 said:


> Liberty Prime!



BRITISH IMPERIALSIM IS  A TEMPORARY SET BACK ON THE ROAD TO DEMOCRACY


----------



## Axl Low (Apr 28, 2010)

So which country wants to tank 4 a-tomz and a bombardment of carpet bomb? 

Seriously, The US is a paranoid person with lots of weapons.
And most of those weapons erase people and towns. :/


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 28, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Lucifeller, why did you ignore my last post?



Because I wanted to avoid posting in this topic to avoid degenerating into a rant. Although the comment I did respond to was just one I couldn't ignore... so much for that. 



> PIS/CIS?? Responding to your government massacarring its own people is CIS/PIS??? Fine, if you say so....



And the difference between their own government doing it in an attempt to actually win against an invader and the invader in question doing it in an attempt to crush your country is...?

Oh yeah, one of the two choices means you just roll over and let your enemy step on your balls. You're going to be blown up ANYWAY. Either the invaders do it or the government does it to repel the onvaders. Since bloodlust is on, I'm fairly sure surrender isn't an option - at least, I have never seen an OBD match end with surrender with bloodlust on.

What you don't seem to get is that this is all out war. You say 'their government massacring its own people', I say 'their government doing everything it can to have a chance at winning'. After all, Immortal said it himself, did he not?



> blood lust means a character uses everything in his arsenal to go for the kill



If that 'everything in his arsenal' happens to cause friendly fire causalties, should I not use it? In that case, I call bullshit on each and every Naruto topic where Akatsuki win because CHIBAKU TENSEI LOL, since it'd nuke Pein's side just as well as the others, and going by that logic, there'd be backlash for the friendly fire, so he shouldn't use it even though it may be his side's only chance to not be destroyed!

...I'm sure you see where I am going with this. Why should China NOT just flatten everything regardless of its own soldiers' presence if it can help its cause? Because of some misguided attempt at fairness and morality in an all-out war? Sure, that's easy for you to say if you are winning. Try being on the losing side and facing annihilation, and suddenly limiting yourself for fear of bad PR is downright silly.

Sigh... and I was hoping not to rant...


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 28, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> What you don't seem to get is that this is all out war. You say 'their government massacring its own people', I say 'their government doing everything it can to have a chance at winning'. After all, Immortal said it himself, did he not?[



and as I said...China has no possibly manner to actually do anything to the Us in any meangiful capacity

where as all America has to do is go "HEY GAIZ..DOWN SOUTH DONT FEED THEM ANY MORE AND WE'LL GIVE YOU EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS TO FEED EUROPE AND AFRICA WITH US KAY?"

and every one goes "MUY BUENO SENIOR OBAMA" or in brazils case "Naoh pudemos maiz..com estos chinos" (I fucking fail at portegues)

while China is utterly boned..because they can;t reach us ever...can't even damage our navy or aircraft

one of our super carriers could likely solo their navy.. in a full wartime economy..the even bigger monsters..the fords will be coming out at two or three every four months each one with the capability to roflstomp..most countries by themselves

this wont end well..China will starve to death and a raw material and precious metal blockade will utterly shatter Chinas ability to make war or fuel their industry 





Lucifeller said:


> If that 'everything in his arsenal' happens to cause friendly fire causalties, should I not use it? In that case, I call bullshit on each and every Naruto topic where Akatsuki win because CHIBAKU TENSEI LOL, since it'd nuke Pein's side just as well as the others, and going by that logic, there'd be backlash for the friendly fire, so he shouldn't use it even though it may be his side's only chance to not be destroyed!



yes of course you should run over your own people to acheive a victory if all else is lost..the problem is..nothing China can do is going to change their fate 


the US and China wont spontaneously start fighting like fucking retards..or armies from thousands of years ago "you gaiz invade here..we invade ur home kay?"

their gonna use everything at their disposal political economic or military..or other wise to win

and in that Regards the pull the US has will dwarf Chinas 

control the beef and grain and raw materials control the fate of china

the Us and by extension its neighbors and allies control that

China is doomed before a single shot is fired

.





Lucifeller said:


> ..I'm sure you see where I am going with this. Why should China NOT just flatten everything regardless of its own soldiers' presence if it can help its cause? Because of some misguided attempt at fairness and morality in an all-out war? Sure, that's easy for you to say if you are winning. Try being on the losing side and facing annihilation, and suddenly limiting yourself for fear of bad PR is downright silly.
> ..



..because China will never face an American armuy until their cities are destroyed their navy wiped out their air force annihilated their economy in ruins..their populace starving and their ability to wage war utterly ruined

while China itself is completely unable to...do any sort of invading the us..with out being..completely pwned and sent packing by superior defenses and military

luci this war is gonna play out exactly like the Siege of Carthage...where Rome killed it..long before they actually breached the cities walls

it;s gonna be just as horrible too..China will likely loose fifty percent of its population..due to food shortages and diseases...and their cities wont be rebuilt for..decades you can expect another qauter to die..while the US and its allies dump money into the country and rebuild it like they did in ww2

thats the magntitude of this conflict..thats how blood lusted super powers fight 

and thats why wars like this should never happen again


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 28, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> BRITISH IMPERIALSIM IS  A TEMPORARY SET BACK ON THE ROAD TO DEMOCRACY


This, and this alone I will reply to: Fucking Win.



Lucifeller said:


> *Snip*


Why are we even arguing about chem/bio weapons? The OP banned it.....


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 28, 2010)

You do realize that with its 400 billion dollars DEBT towards the rest of the world at large AND its economy being half trashed by the crisis, the US as it is NOW would see its own economy go the way of the dodos faster than China's, right? The Chinese aren't new to having shortage of food - it's their country's history, pretty much - and even in the past, they managed to make do with a gargantuan population and nothing besides rice and some rare meat. The fact they survived means they can do it again. Yes, it'll be ugly. No, it's not impossible. It'll just be very, very ugly, but it's doable.

You are confusing a healthy amount of food with no food at all. They'll still have food - not enough to keep their troops and populace well fed, but enough to keep them alive, if malnourished.

Meanwhile, the US are spending even more billions in war machines and their economy is crashing and burning horribly, which can't possibly be healthy. Which by the way would leave them pants down against anyone who wanted to take advantage of the situation to, say, cash in their OWN debts. There's a reason why smart nations cut their losses and bail out in this kind of war - even the winners tend to lose horribly in the long run as their economy is trashed by the war effort.

Also, go in your house. Take a GOOD look at the stuff you ahve in it.

Notice how much of it has MADE IN CHINA written on it - even supposedly all-american stuff like baseball caps and car parts!

You need China as much as China needs you. It's an ugly truth, but the cheap Chinese labor and imports are how a large part of the US's industry manages to stay afloat instead of sinking like a rock in an ocean of debts.

Hope I gave you food for thought... the truth is both countries can easily boycott each other's economy, and in both cases the results will be absolutely catastrophic for the other nation. You stiff them of food? They stiff you of everything else from clothing to articles needed for everyday living. Nobody wins, both get raped without lube.

Some strategy that was... why do you think that despite REPEATED Geneva convention and blatant basic human rights infractions that make what Cuba does look like a child misbehaving, no one dares sanction China with embargos and the like? Because they'd be hanging themselves in doing so. So, all the other nations do is look at what che Chinese regimen does, shake their heads, talk talk talk disapprove disapprove disapprove... and meanwhile they still buy their cheap stuff, because without that cheap stuff their economy's gonna tank in a flash.

THIS is why China, and Japan to a lesser extent, are considered superpowers. Because their stuff is so invasive and has permeated other countries' economy and society so deeply, that the moment they go down is the moment the world's economy will crash and burn so badly it'll make the 1920 depression look like a party.


----------



## Sylar (Apr 28, 2010)

Hey if we kill China we don't have to pay them shit.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 28, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> You do realize that with its 400 billion dollars DEBT towards the rest of the world at large


Destroying the country that the majority of the aforementioned debt is towards means we won't have to pay that....



Lucifeller said:


> AND its economy being half trashed by the crisis, the US as it is NOW would see its own economy go the way of the dodos faster than China's, right?


War Time=War Time Production=Winning War=Surplus Weapons=Selling=Making a shit loaf off it and rebuilding China and making money off of them too. National Debt and recession dealt with, a'la WWII.



Lucifeller said:


> The Chinese aren't new to having shortage of food - it's their country's history, pretty much - and even in the past, they managed to make do with a gargantuan population and nothing besides rice and some rare meat. The fact they survived means they can do it again. Yes, it'll be ugly. No, it's impossible. It'll just be very, very ugly, but it's doable.


Except that back then there population wasn't a few billion. Currently there is still relatively a lot of famine in China for a country of it's standing, and it has to import a _large_ amount of food.



Lucifeller said:


> You are confusing a healthy amount of food with no food at all. They'll still have food - not enough to keep their troops and populace well fed, but enough to keep them alive, if malnourished.


Except that a large amount of food comes from the US and its allies. We embargo them, they lose a _lot_ of food. Their population starts dropping, fast. And if they don't have a revolt in their hands, the famine will still cause some kind of collapse.



Lucifeller said:


> Meanwhile, the US are spending even more billions in war machines and their economy is crashing and burning horribly,


Seriously, we've been through worse than this recession and economic problems.... A lot worse.....



Lucifeller said:


> Which by the way would leave them pants down against anyone who wanted to take advantage of the situation to, say, cash in their OWN debts.


And we'd still have a great military. Hell, if anything, we'd have a larger and more deadly military due to the effects of war time production. It's happened in _every_ war the US has ever fought. And you know what we've done with them? Kept some of them to push back any wannabes, and sold the rest of the low-end stuff to make a killing to the country we just destroyed, all the while making a fortune off of them while repairing their infastructure, economy, etc.



Lucifeller said:


> There's a reason why smart nations cut their losses and bail out in this kind of war - even the winners tend to lose horribly in the long run as their economy is trashed by the war effort.


Since when?? The US has _yet_ to bail out of this kind of war, and it has been a presiding world power since WWI, unchallenged by everyone but Russia during the Cold War, and unchallenged by everyone including Russia post 1984-1985.



Lucifeller said:


> Also, go in your house. Take a GOOD look at the stuff you ahve in it.
> 
> Notice how much of it has MADE IN CHINA written on it - even supposedly all-american stuff like baseball caps and car parts!


You _do_ know that a _lot_ of the reason that that happens is because companies want to be cheap and get a cheap labor force, right? We have more than the capabilities to produce the majority of that ourselves...it's just that it's more expensive here because the workers actually get good payrolls and are paid worth a shit.

And, if need be, there is _always_ Mexico, South and Central America, India, and most of Asia.



Lucifeller said:


> You need China as much as China needs you. It's an ugly truth, but the cheap Chinese labor and imports are how a large part of the US's industry manages to stay afloat instead of sinking like a rock in an ocean of debts.


No, we don't. We give China food. China _needs_ food, badly.

China gives us cheap things for our entertainment and to make our lives easier...things we could just as easily live without for the _most_ part, or we could make ourselves, _or_ we could just pay South America to make.



Lucifeller said:


> Hope I gave you food for thought... the truth is both countries can easily boycott each other's economy, and in both cases the results will be absolutely catastrophic for the other nation. You stiff them of food? They stiff you of everything else from clothing to articles needed for everyday living. Nobody wins, both get raped without lube.


And then, we got to South America, which is poor as hell and would welcome the economic boost. Cheap Labor. China dies. America prospers by giving South America the facilities with which to build a good economy.



Lucifeller said:


> THIS is why China, and Japan to a lesser extent, are considered superpowers.


Or because they are two of the richest nations in the world _and_ posses some of the most advanced and (in China's case), largest militaries in the world.



Lucifeller said:


> Because their stuff is so invasive and has permeated other countries' economy and society so deeply, that the moment they go down is the moment the world's economy will crash and burn so badly it'll make the 1920 depression look like a party.


Again, South America.

You are _vastly_ underestimating American industry. Just because we go to a country so things can be made ridiculously cheaply doesn't mean we can't do it ourselves. Hell, selling off jobs to other countries such as China is actually _hurting_ our economy. This war would only return a lot of jobs to America and put our exportation capabilities _way_ up there, and it would also increase intranational trade.

And you're still forgetting that China lacks a lot of the resources to effectively wage war, the two most important being: Food. Gold. And gold not as in money, gold as in _gold_, because that's the most important part of any high-level computer...which now exist on nearly _all_ military hardware except small arms, which even they are changing it (as seen in the Land Warrior systems and some new sights systems).

@Sylar: not militarily, technically, but it is an economic superpower, and it is also one of the G8.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 29, 2010)

> Japan is a major world power because of its western clients



Not anymore they aren't. Japan is a world power because they kleep pushing the limits on technology, forcing the rest of the world to play catch up with them. From any point of view other than military, the US are a decade behind Japan when it comes to technology. Giving up Japan's tech would mean having to develop your own technology from the ground up, which would be akin to that whole playing catch up on a military hardware design you and a couple other ranted about when it came to your airplane design.

Also? Military operations? Need communication lines to work effectively. Guess where most of the communication equipment in the US army comes from.

Yeah. Japan. They ARE good at that whole communication and hardware business. Hell, back when the PC engine was around, it was actually more powerful than same-time western PCs. Then Japan decided to mostly drop PC making in favor of videogame consoles, but even nowadays, Sony VAIO laptops are better than 90% of their Western counterparts. And as far as televisions, phones and house implements go, the Japanese offer roflstomps the american one when it comes to quality.

You'd think it'd be irrelevant, until you realize how vital a good communication hardware array is to any army. As long as any army depends on japan's products for its communications, that army has a problem.

Incidentally, a few months ago the Pentagon placed an order with Sony for 2200 Playstation 3's for a military project the details of which were undisclosed. Funny how they asked for a hi-tech Japanese console instead of, say, an all-American Xbox360, huh?

Bottom line, Japan is a world power because it is one of only two nations, the second being Switzerland for different reasons, who can totally and utterly rape another nation's economy by virtue of that nation being simply too depending on their technology for everything from everyday use to navigation devices to communications to military hardware.

Switzerland, on the other hand, can simply buy your army from under your ass and then trash your economy more or less without effort. There's a reason why Hitler decided not to mess with the Swiss even though they didn't even have a decent army - he could have taken it over with foot soldiers... except the Swiss would have simply paid his soldiers more than he could, so he left them the hell alone.

Mountains alone aren't enough to stop an invader when you have a joke of an army, but having way, way, way more money than the other guy does (including that guy's own money - lol Swiss banks) is a very good reason to not do anything stupid to them. Like pissing them off.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 29, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Not anymore they aren't. Japan is a world power because they kleep pushing the limits on technology, forcing the rest of the world to play catch up with them. From any point of view other than military, the US are a decade behind Japan when it comes to technology. Giving up Japan's tech would mean having to develop your own technology from the ground up, which would be akin to that whole playing catch up on a military hardware design you and a couple other ranted about when it came to your airplane design.
> 
> Also? Military operations? Need communication lines to work effectively. Guess where most of the communication equipment in the US army comes from.
> 
> ...



Hitler didn't mess with the Swiss not because they were rich, but because they're mountainous (tanks can't move, planes are less effective, infantry are bogged down), have nothing in the way of resources, and would have bogged his army down for months, if not years, for no appreciable gain, especially as they were fully willing to stay neutral anyways. You can't simply buy off a nation-state's army, as we're not in the days of feudal armies anymore.

Also, the reason the US military bought PS3s is because their Cell processors lend themselves to mutual networks, not because they were more "powerful" or "advanced." And our military communications networks aren't dependent on the Japanese, considering we rely mainly on US GPS satellites and naval radar/sonar systems. All the avionics in US military planes are also American-made for security reasons.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 29, 2010)

You would be surprised by how much Japanese hardware is used in US military installations outside of US soil.

I speak from direct experience, living near and having regularly visited two US military bases in Italy (Aviano and Vicenza Ederle), and having at least briefly checked out a few more (including one in Germany). If there indeed are security regulations imposing the use of US hardware in military, then foreign US bases completely shit over those regulations, because they most definitely do NOT use much US hardware at all in the US installations here in Italy. And Germany's bases aren't much different.

So, uh... you're wrong. At least insofar as any Army detachment not on your soil goes.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 29, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> You would be surprised by how much Japanese hardware is used in US military installations outside of US soil.
> 
> I speak from direct experience, living near and having regularly visited two US military bases in Italy (Aviano and Vicenza Ederle), and having at least briefly checked out a few more (including one in Germany). If there indeed are security regulations imposing the use of US hardware in military, then foreign US bases completely shit over those regulations, because they most definitely do NOT use much US hardware at all in the US installations here in Italy. And Germany's bases aren't much different.
> 
> So, uh... you're wrong. At least insofar as any Army detachment not on your soil goes.



I don't doubt that the US military uses foreign (mostly NATO) products for things like radios, computers, etc. After all, if you need sheer quantity, why not go for it? However, the REALLY high-security stuff, such as GPS, avionics, radar, sonar, tracking software, and missile guidance programs, are all made by American defense companies like Raytheon and Boeing, if only because of the security protocols in place.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 29, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Not anymore they aren't. Japan is a world power because they kleep pushing the limits on technology,


Funny because the United States is the most advanced country in the world. As far as technology goes, Japan has the consumer advantage, but as far as the military goes the US has that edge. By and far.



Lucifeller said:


> forcing the rest of the world to play catch up with them.


Not really. The US and Japan are relatively close in terms of technical hardware. Japan just shows stuff that is a lot more for fluff.



Lucifeller said:


> From any point of view other than military, the US are a decade behind Japan when it comes to technology.


IBM, Dell, Microsoft. As far as Hardware goes, we are plenty close. Sure, they have those cool show robots, but it's not a very practical thing either.



Lucifeller said:


> Giving up Japan's tech would mean having to develop your own technology from the ground up


Not at all.



Lucifeller said:


> which would be akin to that whole playing catch up on a military hardware design you and a couple other ranted about when it came to your airplane design.


It is _nowhere_ near a 20+ year gap. Nowhere. At all.



Lucifeller said:


> Also? Military operations? Need communication lines to work effectively. Guess where most of the communication equipment in the US army comes from.


Communication Satellites?



Lucifeller said:


> Then Japan decided to mostly drop PC making in favor of videogame consoles, but even nowadays,


When did this happen? Except that console technology evolves along with computer technology. Consoles are essentially computers...they just don't need to be upgraded every few months.



Lucifeller said:


> Sony VAIO laptops are better than 90% of their Western counterparts.


Not really.



Lucifeller said:


> And as far as televisions, phones and house implements go, the Japanese offer roflstomps the american one when it comes to quality.


Because the United States doesn't invest in things it can easily buy from another country for a cheaper price. Not that it would be hard to build it ourselves.



Lucifeller said:


> You'd think it'd be irrelevant, until you realize how vital a good communication hardware array is to any army.


We can make our own satellites. We have NASA which is one of the best space agencies in the world to send them up too.



Lucifeller said:


> As long as any army depends on japan's products for its communications, that army has a problem.


Not really.



Lucifeller said:


> Incidentally, a few months ago the Pentagon placed an order with Sony for 2200 Playstation 3's for a military project the details of which were undisclosed. Funny how they asked for a hi-tech Japanese console instead of, say, an all-American Xbox360, huh?


Wow, just wow..... I read that article, it was USAF that bought them and you are Quote Mining. The reason that USAF bought them was because they were readily available, in large quantities, and had good processors. Now, USAF actually considered using _American_ processors, which were massively better, but decided not to because the American processors were much more expensive due to their being higher technology.

Furthermore, the PS3 has more computer-like capabilities than the Xbox-360. The 360 is a dedicated gaming system, the PS3 is a Multipurpose Media Player. You can't really compare the two in that aspect. Hell, if you wanted to, you could run Linux on your PS3 and make it into a pseudo computer. The 360 doesn't come with that capability (and it wasn't because they didn't have the tech, they just didn't want to).



Lucifeller said:


> Bottom line, Japan is a world power because it is one of only two nations, the second being Switzerland for different reasons, who can totally and utterly rape another nation's economy by virtue of that nation being simply too depending on their technology for everything from everyday use to navigation devices to communications to military hardware.


Not at all. We don't really need Japanese tech all that much. And you also seem to be forgetting that we also sell technology to Japan and allow them to manufacture it.



Lucifeller said:


> Switzerland, on the other hand, can simply buy your army from under your ass and then trash your economy more or less without effort.


Lolwhat? No, not at all.



Lucifeller said:


> There's a reason why Hitler decided not to mess with the Swiss even though they didn't even have a decent army - he could have taken it over with foot soldiers... except the Swiss would have simply paid his soldiers more than he could, so he left them the hell alone.


_Or_ it was because Switzerland was surrounded by mountains, was a pain in the ass to traverse and would have been even harder to keep under control, was completely neutral and had no military whatsoever, and, therefore, Hitler didn't consider it a threat at all.



Lucifeller said:


> You would be surprised by how much Japanese hardware is used in US military installations outside of US soil.


Hardware that we sell them the blueprints to, btw.What the US does is simple:

-Makes design
-Test design
-Takes all Top Secret, classified tech and keep it to themselves
-Split blueprints up to several pieces
-Send blueprints to foreign countries to be manufactured
-Rinse&Repeat for next model.


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 29, 2010)

> IBM, Dell, Microsoft. As far as Hardware goes, we are plenty close. Sure, they have those cool show robots, but it's not a very practical thing either.



PCs. What part of 'Japan abandoned the PC market to focus on other revenues' did you miss?

Also, lol Microsoft. Seriously? A company whose main console had a 40%+ falure rate (and RRoDs still happen with a good 15%/20% chance), and who has been incapable of releasing a decently stable, non-sucky version of Windows for the last DECADE or so... if you wanted to make the US's producers look like incompetent morons, then Microsoft is a good choice. It only dominates because it's been strangling the market, but that antitrust lawsuit left a nasty mark there... there's a reason why nobody uses Internet Explorer anymore, it's because it's a pile of crap compared to basically any other browser, and the only reason why Linux hasn't nuked Windows in popularity is because Linux has a very steep learning curve (some would say it's dumbass-unfriendly in other forums).

By the way, Fujitsu PCs in the early 1990s were known for being out-of-standard, based on proprietary design (read: not the American design) and far more powerful than Western ones. However, they were completely incompatible with Western software and peripherals, having been designed for in-Japan-only use.

The main reason why Japan isn't leading the PC race is because it's not trying to to begin with. Where it actually tries, it generally tends to lead technologically.



> Or it was because Switzerland was surrounded by mountains, was a pain in the ass to traverse and would have been even harder to keep under control, was completely neutral and had no military whatsoever, and, therefore, Hitler didn't consider it a threat at all.



Switzerland also had a LOT of money. And keeping an army like the Wehrmacht online cost money. A lot of it. Swiss mountains are massively overrated - they are smaller than the Italian-side Alps, and can be easily traversed by foot soldiers even in Winter, and the Swiss had no actual military defense OR military-trained corps besides the Vatican Guard (which as the name implies, is in the Vatican, not Switzerland...).

It would have been a LOT easier to invade than even Italy, and the payout for doing so would have been extremely large even back then - you are basically arguing that someone who sees an unguarded bank, has no qualms about killing people and needs money wouldn't rob that bank.

The real reason why the Swiss were left alone was BECAUSE they had money. So much of it they could simply either buy out your own soldiers or just plain hire enough of them to make it unfeasible to attack them. But people like to attribute that to the terrain (which is idiocy, as during WWI with much worse units the Germans had no trouble waltzing over the much higher Italian Alps to deal with the Italian resistance, and if they could do that in 1915 with worse military hardware than they had in 1940, they could do it to the Swiss whose mountains are simply nowhere near as big as the Alps, and come out on top.

And as mentioned, there was L O T S O F M O N E Y involved if they DID take over the Swiss, but there was also a very concrete chance that they would have used that money's power AGAINST Hitler if he had attempted to invade them. Do you seriously think a megalomaniacal racist bent on ethnic cleansing and conquest like Hitler would have passed up a chance like Switzerland, what with them having no standing army whatsoever, no defense against even a food soldier ground attack, a small population that couldn't offer much in the way of rebellion AND a boatload of money, if there hadn't been a concrete risk of him losing his army in some fashion regardless of the Swiss's perceived puniness?

Sigh... I suppose that, living right next door to Switzerland, it's easier to get the actual facts instead of the misinformed nonsense that a lot of overseas books say about Switzerland's supposed neutrality (and, for that matter, about Mussolini's motives for joining Hitler... no, he wasn't happy about joining him. Hitler basically told him 'cooperate or I'll burn Italy down and salt the earth. Pick one.', and Mussolini picked the choice that wouldn't make Italy end like Poland, but most books just go OMG FASCIST SCUM and don't realize he never had a choice)... it wasn't a 'we'll remain over here, so please don't hurt us' neutrality, it was a 'we would rather not get involved in this, so please don't make us do something extremely unpleasant that will result in much pain and yelling on your behalf, okay? We aren't as harmless as we look'.



> Hardware that we sell them the blueprints to, btw.What the US does is simple:
> 
> -Makes design
> -Test design
> ...



Funny how you forget how Japan does more or less the same by withholding a LARGE amount of hardware from the rest of the world, to say nothing of instructions for how to use it. Not that they are the only ones to do it...

To use a videogame example, know why first party games tend to overall be better than others? Because only first party developers are given the full development package for consoles. Everyone else is only given access to certain parts of the hardware.

This is true of ALL technology, not just American tech. Everyone withholds something from everyone, if you really think America is the only one to do so, my advice to you is to wake up, because real life and the propaganda you people are fed by your own government are different things.

In short: Japan does to the US the exact same thing the US does to Japan. And they do have a habit of improving on each and every design they take interest in... but they don't necessarily TELL YOU that they did.

LCD screens are a good example. Used to be American ones were the best. Japan improved on the design so much with their own that by now even the best American LCD is somewhere inbetween inferior and obsolete crap compared to theirs. And while the rest of the world is still perfecting HD, the Japanese are already making plans for mass-distribution 3D, which is still in its starting stages, if at all, everywhere else.

I'm not even touching the console race. The numbers speak for themselves, and the PS3 IS overall more powerful than the 360, in no small part thanks to Microsoft's harebrained choice of using DirectX 9.0 for the 360's graphics library, while Sony uses OpenGL1.0 - and even Sony made a mistake, as it could have used OpenGL2.0, which would have elevated its console's graphics department to such a level everyone else would have been left trailing in the dust.

By the way, the funny thing about the US is that basically little to nothing they have is their own creation, but rather something they stole/imported/bought off someone. It's a direct consequence of the cultural mishmash. The US's history can be summed up in 'they owe their very existence and society to the rest of the world'.

Think about that the next time you start ranting about how it is YOUR designs you give off to someone. There's very little that can be called 'yours' - hell, most of the US's scientific advancements weren't even achieved by US citizens.

For my part, I'm tired of this whole argument. Feel free to respond if you want to be petty and have the last word to look like you 'won', but it's clear to me that we won't reconcile our difference in opinions, so I'm going to quit here and look for a more worthwhile topic. 

In hindsight, I should really have known better than to argue with Americans about how their country isn't the be-all, end-all of things - after all, Hollywood had the US army beat GODZILLA, and the less said about a bunch of Marines doing anything more than cosmetic damage to Decepticons in the Transformers movie, the better...


----------



## Watchman (Apr 29, 2010)

> Switzerland also had a LOT of money. And keeping an army like the Wehrmacht online cost money. A lot of it. Swiss mountains are massively overrated - they are smaller than the Italian-side Alps, and can be easily traversed by foot soldiers even in Winter, and the Swiss had no actual military defense OR military-trained corps besides the Vatican Guard (which as the name implies, is in the Vatican, not Switzerland...).



By foot soldiers, yes. Not by tanks and armoured vehicles. And the Swiss had (and still have) a very well-trained militia.



> It would have been a LOT easier to invade than even Italy, and the payout for doing so would have been extremely large even back then - you are basically arguing that someone who sees an unguarded bank, has no qualms about killing people and needs money wouldn't rob that bank.



It would have been more trouble than it was worth - Conquering the Swiss was possible for the Nazis, yes, but it would have been a huge fucking headache to rule over an armed populace, and Hitler always had bigger fish to fry - first France, then Russia. He was never in a position where sending a sizeable number of men to take and hold Switzerland was feasible, because he always had more important targets to take.



> The real reason why the Swiss were left alone was BECAUSE they had money. So much of it they could simply either buy out your own soldiers or just plain hire enough of them to make it unfeasible to attack them.



Mercenaries went out of fashion in the 1600s. You don't just "buy out" a modern organized army, who in any case are more likely to go "...So you give us money for leaving you alone, or we conquer you and get even more money? What a difficult decision. "



> But people like to attribute that to the terrain (which is idiocy, as during WWI with much worse units the Germans had no trouble waltzing over the much higher Italian Alps to deal with the Italian resistance, and if they could do that in 1915 with worse military hardware than they had in 1940, they could do it to the Swiss whose mountains are simply nowhere near as big as the Alps, and come out on top.



It's not simply crossing the mountains. Once you've crossed the mountains into Italy, then you've got the flat land of the Po River Valley - Switzerland on the other hand is mostly elevated terrain.



> And as mentioned, there was L O T S O F M O N E Y involved if they DID take over the Swiss, but there was also a very concrete chance that they would have used that money's power AGAINST Hitler if he had attempted to invade them.



How, exactly? By shipping their gold bullion through Occupied France to the British? Good luck trying that without some being caught.



> Do you seriously think a megalomaniacal racist bent on ethnic cleansing and conquest like Hitler would have passed up a chance like Switzerland, what with them having no standing army whatsoever, no defense against even a food soldier ground attack, a small population that couldn't offer much in the way of rebellion AND a boatload of money, if there hadn't been a concrete risk of him losing his army in some fashion regardless of the Swiss's perceived puniness?



Swiss Gold<Industry and farmland of France and Russia in the longterm, and yes, conquering the Swiss was possible for the Nazis, but too much of a bother to spare the men for (just because they were neutral didn't mean that they were puny) whilst they were dealing with first France, then Russia, and then the USA.



> Sigh... I suppose that, living right next door to Switzerland, it's easier to get the actual facts instead of the misinformed nonsense that a lot of overseas books say about Switzerland's supposed neutrality (and, for that matter, about Mussolini's motives for joining Hitler... no, he wasn't happy about joining him. Hitler basically told him 'cooperate or I'll burn Italy down and salt the earth. Pick one.', and Mussolini picked the choice that wouldn't make Italy end like Poland, but most books just go OMG FASCIST SCUM and don't realize he never had a choice)...



Historical Revisionism much? Of course Musolini had a choice - if the Nazis weren't going to burn down and salt the earth of their bitter rivals in France, why on earth would they do so to Italy if they remained neutral?

Musolini just hedged his bets and picked the person whose interests coincided with his own the most - weaker France and Britain, Italy gets the mediterranean and North Africa, etc. And no, being an Italian doesn't automatically mean you get the big picture that the rest of the world is somehow missing, any more than being born in China means "of course I know that nothing happened in Tianamen Square 1989, what are you talking about you silly Westerners"


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 29, 2010)

> Historical Revisionism much? Of course Musolini had a choice - if the Nazis weren't going to burn down and salt the earth of their bitter rivals in France, why on earth would they do so to Italy if they remained neutral?



Because Italy had a history of being a giant pain in the ass when its Resistance got involved. During WWI Italy's resistance militia, mostly led by the Alpine corps, pretty much singlehandedly tied up all the German troops in the nation at the Piave river for a grotesquely long time, and proved to be a gigantic headache by being both disinclined to surrender and extremely hard to deal with.

Moreover, Italy had some rich land in the south and already a small presence in Africa, so they were convenient allies. Mussolini cast his dice with Hitler because it was the only realistic course of action for Italy - Even if he had said NO, Hitler would have gotten Italy with or without him - only, if he had said no, he'd have 'taken' Italy the same way he took Poland, ie, by taking over the country with violence and making its inhabitants tantamount to slaves.

Imagine, if you will, a war between Earth and the Galactic Empire from Star Wars. Assume that for whatever unfathomable reason the Emperor values this backyard little planet with a puny defense force. Now imagine Palpatine offering you to ally with him.

If you say yes, your planet is now subservient to the Galactic Empire, but at least its inhabitants don't get trashed and you still have some semblance of control. If, on the other hand, you refuse, Palpatine just removes you and whoever sides with you with deadly force, plants his own loyal monkeys on the planet, and STILL takes over the planet - only, you and a lot of other people are now DEAD because instead of doing the sensible thing and surrendering to a gargantuanly superior military power, you had to try and be a hero and got yourself and all your followers summarily executed. And the survivors probably won't be doing so hot either.

Well, this was more or less the 'choice' Mussolini had. Either serve Germany as alleged allies and retain SOME semblance of freedom, or be crushed like bugs by the Wehrmacht, have most of the local populace deported or reduced to basically serfs, and STILL make no difference in the end result - except for making the survivors' stuation exponentially worse, because the common folk always pay for their leader's poor choices.

And for the record: Italy's military was also trashed following WWI, so they could offer even less resistance than Poland. We were pretty much puny, taking them on would have been pointless suicide and nothing else. We were NOT the United States, if you think we really had any choice you are delusional, the only choice was accept or be annihilated, not accept or resist.

The Wehrmacht WOULD have crushed us in short order. Talk about revisionism all you want, but the brutal truth is that without Mussolini accepting Hitler's offer, there'd be bloody FEW actual Italians left by now.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 29, 2010)

And if Hitler didn't absolutely massacre Poland or France or the Netherlands or Belgium or the Czech Republic or ANYONE else, why do you think he'd have gone after Italy and massacred everyone? You're overreacting to a huge degree. He'd probably have invaded out of sheer megalomania, yes, but not until the far bigger war aims of beating France and Russia were both complete.

In the meantime, on Italy's side, allying with Germany was a great idea - they're dealing with the big threats to Italy's mediterrannean ambitions. Yes, the best realistic choice for Italy was joining forces with Germany - not because otherwise they'd be destroyed, but because joining forces with Germany suited THEIR goals as well.

This wasn't just "poor little Italy had no choice but to pal up with the big evil Germans", they did have a choice, unlike say, Poland or the Czechs, and trying to whitewash it is nonsense revisionism.


----------



## dream (Apr 29, 2010)

> The numbers speak for themselves, and the PS3 IS overall more powerful than the 360, in no small part thanks to Microsoft's harebrained choice of using DirectX 9.0 for the 360's graphics library, while Sony uses OpenGL1.0 - and even Sony made a mistake, as it could have used OpenGL2.0, which would have elevated its console's graphics department to such a level everyone else would have been left trailing in the dust.



:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 29, 2010)

> And if Hitler didn't absolutely massacre Poland or France or the Netherlands or Belgium or the Czech Republic or ANYONE else, why do you think he'd have gone after Italy and massacred everyone?



Uh, he DID mostly massacre Poland. Namely, the very large Jew community in Poland. Ever heard of a pogrom? Look it up - 250,000 dead just in the first few weeks, and that's just the Jews - also, anyone who helped them was also summarily executed, and that added up to even MORE actual Polish citizens. It took a while before the Polish (and the rest of the world) realized Hitler meant business with this whole ethnic cleansing bit.

Also, when France's much-vaunted Maginot Line fell, they wasted no time in playing turncoat and surrendering to Hitler. That's a large part of why he didn't get nasty with them, and it's also why the rest of the world still mocks France's supposed tendency to surrender - they never really forgave them for that one. Other nations also ended up falling in line with Hitler's genocidal policy, and were mostly left alone. Not a nice thing to do, but the alternative was a lot worse.

Incidentally, at the time there was a large concentration of Jews in Italy. Needless to say, it wouldn't have worked out well.

You claim we did have a choice, but we didn't really. What you WOULD be right about is if you said Mussolini's choice was extremely distasteful, callous and coldhearted - he pretty much allowed the Nazi to grab and deport any Jew they found, and encouraged his people to not harbor them as refugees, but it was largely, if not exclusively, for fear of what'd happen if Hitler decided Italy was a little too Jew-loving.

I'm not even going to try defending the racial laws Mussolini promulgated. They were cruel and deprecable. But I'm not going to concede that he had a choice about joining Hitler or not. He didn't have a choice on that - he just had a choice on how to deal with the Jews in Italy. THAT one was total failure on his behalf, but the choice to join was a sensible one and, in fact, the only one that made sense from a political standpoint.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 29, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> PCs. What part of 'Japan abandoned the PC market to focus on other revenues' did you miss?


If you knew anything about consoles you wouldn't say that. What makes a modern console? Just a few basics:
-Sound Card
-Processor
-Graphics Card
-HDD
-RAM

Now, let's look at the main components of a PC and...
-Sound Card
-Processor
-Graphics Card
-HDD
-RAM

PC technology and console technology evolve _together._ Without investing into PC research then you would never have a good console. Why? Because what do you think serves as the testbed for the features of the Graphics Card, Sound Cards, etc. you're putting on your console? PCs.



Lucifeller said:


> if you wanted to make the US's producers look like incompetent morons, then Microsoft is a good choice. It only dominates because it's been strangling the market,


Fine then, two fine ones:
-IBM
-Dell



Lucifeller said:


> there's a reason why nobody uses Internet Explorer anymore, it's because it's a pile of crap compared to basically any other browser


It's also been out there longer than any other browser and was a very popular one, making it prone to viruses. As well as that it is just a basic, free, feature that comes with most computers so you can at least get on the internet. Are you going to complain about how nobody uses notepad too?



Lucifeller said:


> and the only reason why Linux hasn't nuked Windows in popularity is because Linux has a very steep learning curve (some would say it's dumbass-unfriendly in other forums).


Then what about Macs? Hmm? Mac OSs>>>>>Windows. But Windows has a much larger availability of software. Even if Linux were more accessible, the lack of software to support it would still kill it.



Lucifeller said:


> By the way, Fujitsu PCs in the early 1990s were known for being out-of-standard, based on proprietary design (read: not the American design) and far more powerful than Western ones. However, they were completely incompatible with Western software and peripherals, having been designed for in-Japan-only use.






Lucifeller said:


> The main reason why Japan isn't leading the PC race is because it's not trying to to begin with. Where it actually tries, it generally tends to lead technologically.


As I said before, if you invest into console tech you _are_ investing in PC tech. A modern console and PC are so similar that save for their OSs, they are pretty much the same thing.



Lucifeller said:


> Switzerland also had a LOT of money. And keeping an army like the Wehrmacht online cost money. A lot of it.


Which won't serve it well when it is being bombarded by aircraft and rushes by tanks.....



Lucifeller said:


> It would have been a LOT easier to invade than even Italy, and the payout for doing so would have been extremely large even back then


And, like I said, it would have been a pain in the ass for infantry just to invade a neutral, no-threat country that would have done nothing to either side.



Lucifeller said:


> you are basically arguing that someone who sees an unguarded bank, has no qualms about killing people and needs money wouldn't rob that bank.


You don't provide a good point as to why he wouldn't either... Buy out the entire military? Byahahahahah!!



Lucifeller said:


> The real reason why the Swiss were left alone was BECAUSE they had money. So much of it they could simply either buy out your own soldiers


Yes, because fanaticized soldiers are _so_ easy to buy out. Are you seriously arguing this? When in history has an enemy's opposing army being bought out?

And, hell, are you even factoring in that they _could_ buy the army. What of sustaining it? They would be unable to sustain such an army at all because they don't have the capabilities to do so. War is not like in a strategy game where you simply buy a unit and are free of it. In the real world, the units tend to break down (Nazi tech did so frequently), need repairs, and need frequent updates. And this applies to everything jeeps to aircraft.



Lucifeller said:


> just plain hire enough of them to make it unfeasible to attack them.


Which wouldn't work in the real world.



Lucifeller said:


> But people like to attribute that to the terrain


I wonder why?? Terrain and weather has been, since the beginning of time, the most devestating effectors of war. Having the higher ground has always been, shall always be an advantage. Living in a place that is freezing cold gives you an advantage over an enemy who lives in a dessert and vice-versa.

Terrain is _very_ important, and _very_ dangerous. Why do you think its so important?



Lucifeller said:


> (which is idiocy, as during WWI with much worse units the Germans had no trouble waltzing over the much higher Italian Alps to deal with the Italian resistance, and if they could do that in 1915 with worse military hardware than they had in 1940, they could do it to the Swiss whose mountains are simply nowhere near as big as the Alps, and come out on top.


Because the Germans were dealing with _enemy_ troops. Why go through the trouble of doing as such if you're dealing with an-out of the way neutral country? You wouldn't, you'd deal with them afterwards. Common sense and tactics.

Besides, think a little harder and you'll see another problem: armor. How do you get armor up there? Sure, for infantry it would be easy, but what about tanks, APCs, Flaks Trucks, artillery, etc.

And not to mention that it would slow down the Nazis to do this. Nazi warfare was based on speed, getting to and through the enemy as quickly as possible and destroying them, it would have been unbeneficial even to Nazi warfare.



Lucifeller said:


> And as mentioned, there was L O T S O F M O N E Y involved if they DID take over the Swiss


And no tactical/strategic advantage. And, furthermore, then you'd have to deal with any unnecessary insurgency groups that arise there in the middle of a where you are spearing through and trying to leave as few men as possible behind. 

i.e.=WWII Iraq



Lucifeller said:


> but there was also a very concrete chance that they would have used that money's power AGAINST Hitler if he had attempted to invade them.


Money that they wouldn't be able to utilize very well.... You can't build an army over day, and I've already pointed out to you the impracticalities of trying to buy out an army of fanaticized nationalists who nearly worship their leader. And, if you could, you still wouldn't be able to support them... Especially since Switzerland isn't the most fertile land in the world....



Lucifeller said:


> Sigh... I suppose that, living right next door to Switzerland, it's easier to get the actual facts instead of the misinformed nonsense that a lot of overseas books say about Switzerland's supposed neutrality
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## paulatreides0 (Apr 29, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> By the way, the funny thing about the US is that basically little to nothing they have is their own creation, but rather something they stole/imported/bought off someone. It's a direct consequence of the cultural mishmash. The US's history can be summed up in 'they owe their very existence and society to the rest of the world'.


Lolwhat?

-F-22
-B-2
-B-52
-M-16
-M1A1-Abrams
-AH-64D Apache Longbow
-Nizmitz Class
-Gerald Ford Class
-CH-44 Chinook
-All our Submarines
-M-14 Sniper Rifle variants (among the favorite sniper rifle variants throughout the military)
-Humvee
-Super Cobra Attack Helicopter
-F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
-F-15 Eagle
-F-16 Falcon
-Plenty more

The _vast_ majority of our weapon systems are American researched, designed, and made.



Lucifeller said:


> Think about that the next time you start ranting about how it is YOUR designs you give off to someone. There's very little that can be called 'yours' - hell, most of the US's scientific advancements weren't even achieved by US citizens.


No duh? But that applies to most countries in the world.

Modern Aircraft Carrier Warfare was invented by the Japanese in WWII
Thrust Vectoring was first used by the Russians IIRC
Jets&Guided Missiles=German

But what we do is we adapt that technology and we improve on it. Our own weapons based on that technology _is_ our own, and more often than not superior to most other systems of its time.



Lucifeller said:


> Because Italy had a history of being a giant pain in the ass when its Resistance got involved. During WWI Italy's resistance militia, mostly led by the Alpine corps, pretty much singlehandedly tied up all the German troops in the nation at the Piave river for a grotesquely long time, and proved to be a gigantic headache by being both disinclined to surrender and extremely hard to deal with.


Exactly. What exactly did Switzerland do/have that might endanger Nazi Germany? Oh, wait.....



Lucifeller said:


> Moreover, Italy had some rich land in the south and already a small presence in Africa, so they were convenient allies.


As well as being a convenient port to and from Africa allowing the Nazis easier acess to the continent from Europe.



Lucifeller said:


> The Wehrmacht WOULD have crushed us in short order. Talk about revisionism all you want, but the brutal truth is that without Mussolini accepting Hitler's offer, there'd be bloody FEW actual Italians left by now.


Or Switzerland


----------



## Lucifeller (Apr 29, 2010)

Sigh. This is pointless, as expected. Just one thing and I'm gone for good.



> They are actually relatively close in that respect, and, also, as far as graphics go, Gamespot would like to have a word with you since multiplatform games almost always look better on the 360 vs. PS3.



That's because the 360 IS easier to program for. The 360 is based on Windows, it's pretty much a PC's wimpy brother. The PS3, on the other hand, is based on Linux. Anyone who's ever used Linux will tell you that when you want to crossplatform a program from Windows to Linux... well... it's not going to be pleasant. Or easy.

Incidentally, Final Fantasy XIII was initially programmed only for PS3, and in fact, the earlier versions looked a LOT better than the ones the fans got in the end. Then they decided to make it multiplatform, and graphics took a significant hit - especially on 360, you can clearly see the game is less defined than on PS3. Not to mention the 360 has the game on three discs and requires installation, whereas the PS3 version flows seamlessly from bluray without installations whatsoever and with bare-bones load times.

And don't tell me Square did it to make PS3 look good. Both Star Ocean 4 and Last remnant were first published on 360, which helped its sales A LOT, and FFXIII actually LOST its PS3 exclusive status. If anything, they like Microsoft.

With this, I'm out. This topic has devolved in a WWII debate anyway...


----------



## dream (Apr 29, 2010)

Xbox 360's gpu is more powerful than the PS3's.  The cell processor is really the only thing Ps3 has going for it.


----------



## Aokiji (Apr 29, 2010)

Sylar said:


> Hey if we kill China we don't have to pay them shit.





This is China, not Taiwan.

Also, I doubt state level debt works that way.

Not to mention, didn't your own citizens support and raise flags for the enemy, last times you waged war in the vincinity?


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 29, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Not anymore they aren't. Japan is a world power because they kleep pushing the limits on technology, forcing the rest of the world to play catch up with them. From any point of view other than military, the US are a decade behind Japan when it comes to technology. Giving up Japan's tech would mean having to develop your own technology from the ground up, which would be akin to that whole playing catch up on a military hardware design you and a couple other ranted about when it came to your airplane design.



thats actually a pop culture myth  all the major software developments that have radically altered the world either came from an American..(gates) or northern Europeans 

most software is actually made in Finland..Denmark and such like (which honestly..is silly it'd be cheaper to do it in Japan but meh thats Europe for you )



Lucifeller said:


> Also? Military operations? Need communication lines to work effectively. Guess where most of the communication equipment in the US army comes from.



Northern Europe..the US and Japan 


Lucifeller said:


> Yeah. Japan. They ARE good at that whole communication and hardware business. Hell, back when the PC engine was around, it was actually more powerful than same-time western PCs. Then Japan decided to mostly drop PC making in favor of videogame consoles, but even nowadays, Sony VAIO laptops are better than 90% of their Western counterparts. And as far as televisions, phones and house implements go, the Japanese offer roflstomps the american one when it comes to quality.



I owned a sony vaio..it fucking sucked one bad Miami Thunderstorm..and it destroyed itself...

by comparison my "low grade" American dell has no sold that shit....countless times

I prefer my Laptops to be toshiba over sony..or Dell and my desk tops American 

except for mac..fuck mac...


Lucifeller said:


> You'd think it'd be irrelevant, until you realize how vital a good communication hardware array is to any army. As long as any army depends on japan's products for its communications, that army has a problem.



the US developed sophisticated communications arrays that utterly Dwarf Japans best..long before Japan..ever dipped their hands to it

or did pople suddenly forget America fucking bugged the entire ocean floor

and allowed for live feeds from the fucking moon


Lucifeller said:


> Incidentally, a few months ago the Pentagon placed an order with Sony for 2200 Playstation 3's for a military project the details of which were undisclosed. Funny how they asked for a hi-tech Japanese console instead of, say, an all-American Xbox360, huh?



considering the US military has always had a friendly relationship with Japanese companies dating back to the Lorean war this does not surprise me in the least

Microsft by extension...is the company they go to..for everything else 

they also got a huge ass contract with alienware..at the same time they did PS...maybe their just interested in testing the affects of video games...on soldiers or what have you 

it wouldn't be the first time 



Lucifeller said:


> Bottom line, Japan is a world power because it is one of only two nations, the second being Switzerland for different reasons, who can totally and utterly rape another nation's economy by virtue of that nation being simply too depending on their technology for everything from everyday use to navigation devices to communications to military hardware.



well this is completely not true...about Japan and Switzerland

the Swiss can;t be touched

but they can't do shit...to other nations 



Lucifeller said:


> Switzerland, on the other hand, can simply buy your army from under your ass and then trash your economy more or less without effort. There's a reason why Hitler decided not to mess with the Swiss even though they didn't even have a decent army - he could have taken it over with foot soldiers... except the Swiss would have simply paid his soldiers more than he could, so he left them the hell alone.



that was a bunch of bullshit....Hitler didn't invade switzerland because of the terrain..and it was also fucking pointless

why would you conquer a nation totally Ammoral and fucked up enough that they willingly let you deposit..gold you literally ripped off Jewish corpses...right into their banks?

Switzerland had just as much blood on its hands as nazi germany..and kept a fuckton of their plundered loot

and when the war ended..they just quietly..took that shit..and kept it

Switzerland survives mainly because their Bankers and politicians bunch of immoral fuckwads...who do buisiness with any one..who has cash gold or what ever

which means..every one..does it with them and no ones gonna attack them..because it'd be retarded to shit on such an opportunistic resource 

oh and the Caimen Islands are slowly starting to compete with them any ways in that regard..so yeah  




Lucifeller said:


> Mountains alone aren't enough to stop an invader when you have a joke of an army, but having way, way, way more money than the other guy does (including that guy's own money - lol Swiss banks) is a very good reason to not do anything stupid to them. Like pissing them off.



yes they are especially when your entire wartime strategy is...Grab as much as humanly possible..as fast as possible with out spending too much time..on one nation when doing so would actually disrupt your armies momentum and potentially break it 

oh..and the other reasons I mentioned above as to why..Switzerland never got touched by any one..especially Hitler


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Apr 29, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> This is China, not Taiwan.
> 
> Also, I doubt state level debt works that way.
> 
> Not to mention, didn't your own citizens support and raise flags for the enemy, last times you waged war in the vincinity?



tis is assuming...bloodlusted America..so spanish American war/ww2 style nationalism..is in full swing

meaning the very few who...throw up flags for the communsits./ are gonna get..ignored

and yeah international debt works that way..if the countries in ruins it can't collect from you...any country that tries to go "well we wont loan you now" or any of the typical stuff that follows debt defaulting

may see a few country busting Gerald fords..park outside their shores


a war like this..on the stipulations usually equates to "blood lusted truly imperialist America"


----------



## Diskyr (Apr 30, 2010)




----------



## Axl Low (Apr 30, 2010)

The US in Military is very powerful and its weapons are great in abundance. The US is constantly coming with new ways of reducing population... I mean reducing threats to them with new tech. We have bombs that create vacuums that can suck out air in several mile diameters. Can you live without air? Sure, how long?


----------

