Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The USA may have the best military, but what about numerous countries coming together? I'd think China and Japan could definitley take us out. But since they're known for being rivals, hopefully they won't team up to destroy us.

At 5/12/09 02:43 AM, dude23 wrote: PineappleWinnie, for the length of you're last post, I would have assumed you would have known what you were talking about. For one, if Latin America were to invade America, we would bomb the shit out of their forces. Second, who are you to say Americans are unwilling to fight? Third, you use that point over and over in your awful argument. Whatever. I could go on and on . . .

America has many flaws, don't get me wrong, but so does EVERY nation. I am just pissed that people think they know what they are talking about when they don't.

. . . Basically, you make many unfounded claims (such as America is full of emos).

He is right, though. The USA has traditionally dropped all of its allies to their own fate, such as Batista, Iran's Shah, Shiang Kai Shek, Trujillo and so on. And at the same time the USA has supported their enemies, such as the Saudi Arabian kings (who may have funded Al Qaeda), helped in the rise of Pol Pot, pretty much left Castro alone (to the point of apologizing to Castro, which is what Obama did), and this is a serious flaw. The USA has lost a LOT of incluence in the World lately, influence that was gained by someone else, be it China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Palestina, Russia, or whoever else. This can harm the USA should a big conflict appear, historically most USA allies end up screwed, so no reason to side with the USA whatsoever.

Secondly, USA is full of emos. People there have grown far too socialistic, and feel the USA should apologize for all of its actions. Gay marriage is such a big concern, that it has priority over everything else, leading to bash beauty pageants and just about everyone who isn't a declared cock guy.

Third, the USA selects its immigrants badly. It ussually rejects professionals, while allow massive non professionals in. Another negative point for the USA. Another positive point for someone else.

The USA may have been an ultra powerful nation once. But to me, it now looks more like a parody of itself. Sorry guys, can't respect you if you don't earn the respect.

If China, and Japan team up, without nukes, the US would actually lose. They invested money on those 2 countries and remember, most likely, since it won't have nuclear weapons, they won't surrender.

Now against France, no contest, enter France, they surrender. But mostly, it would take a few months or a year to defeat France.

If all of Asia actually declares war on the United States however, well, it won't look good, and well, it might be classified as raped(that won't happen unless all of Asia realize that they should work with each other).

At 4/24/09 12:00 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: I would very much like to see America Vs Britain.

Without nukes.

Britain would still lose.

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote: If China, and Japan team up, without nukes, the US would actually lose. They invested money on those 2 countries and remember, most likely, since it won't have nuclear weapons, they won't surrender.

Now against France, no contest, enter France, they surrender. But mostly, it would take a few months or a year to defeat France.

If all of Asia actually declares war on the United States however, well, it won't look good, and well, it might be classified as raped(that won't happen unless all of Asia realize that they should work with each other).

Pretty sure that Japan is under some type of global law by the U.N. that it is not allowed to have a military over a certain size(because of WW2)
So,Japan's military is not really a huge threat.

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote: If China, and Japan team up, without nukes, the US would actually lose. They invested money on those 2 countries and remember, most likely, since it won't have nuclear weapons, they won't surrender.

It wouldn't lose by a long shot. Japan has a modern but tiny military and China has a huge but absolute shite military.

Now against France, no contest, enter France, they surrender. But mostly, it would take a few months or a year to defeat France.

Thats just steriotyping. France would lose. But it has more chance than any single country after Britain.

This whole thing about France being surrender monkeys, funny as it is. Is untrue and unfair to them. It Dates back to WW2 where France fell quickly to the Nazis yes? Just to point out something to British and Americans who actually go beyond the joke of French being cowards and take it seriously.

Britain had a Channel protecting them from the Nazis, the USA had a fucking Ocean.

If all of Asia actually declares war on the United States however, well, it won't look good, and well, it might be classified as raped(that won't happen unless all of Asia realize that they should work with each other).

If Asia declared war on the USA they would not be able to land a single attack on US soil. They have near to Nil Blue Water Capabilities, and Power Projection.

The only countries capable of projecting true force and fighting a campaign on another side of the world are at this point in time, The United States, the United Kingdom and to some Extent France. Howether Britain and France are still nothing in their Power Projection capabilities to the USA.

The USS Theadore, the largest ship in the world can itself travel anywere in the world and defeat a small country.

People really don't understand the power of the USA.

At 5/15/09 07:13 AM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

Thats just steriotyping. France would lose. But it has more chance than any single country after Britain.

This whole thing about France being surrender monkeys, funny as it is. Is untrue and unfair to them. It Dates back to WW2 where France fell quickly to the Nazis yes? Just to point out something to British and Americans who actually go beyond the joke of French being cowards and take it seriously.

but its true. and they didn't do shit in WWI. by the way it's spelled stereotyping not "steriotypying"

At 5/17/09 03:35 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/15/09 07:13 AM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

but its true. and they didn't do shit in WWI.

Didn't France have one of the highest casualty counts of WWI?

And if France didn't do anything, who did, exactly?

At 5/17/09 03:35 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

but its true. and they didn't do shit in WWI.

France did more than the US in WW1. They fought more battles, and had a higher kill/death count.
Sure once America decided to enter the war after a few years, they backed up france and won some key battles, but the huge military contributions France made before the US arrival cannot be ignored.

And in WW2, France was just unlucky.
France was bordering Germany, and niether France nor its allies were ready for a full scale war, let alone an invasion.
The speed at which the German army managed to push into capture key locations in France meant that the French had no other choice but the surrender. At which point the resistance forces were born, along with the 'Free French' forces, commanded by De Gaulle in the UK.
Even after Frances 'official' defeat, many French still continued to fight.

So the whole 'surrender monkey' thing is as idiotic as it is ignorant.

At 5/17/09 03:35 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/15/09 07:13 AM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

Thats just steriotyping. France would lose. But it has more chance than any single country after Britain.

This whole thing about France being surrender monkeys, funny as it is. Is untrue and unfair to them. It Dates back to WW2 where France fell quickly to the Nazis yes? Just to point out something to British and Americans who actually go beyond the joke of French being cowards and take it seriously.

but its true. and they didn't do shit in WWI. by the way it's spelled stereotyping not "steriotypying"

I guess that was a mistake to say WWI rather than WWII, because France possibly did more than anyone in WWI.

But In WW2 It wasn't because they were shitter or more cowardly than the British or Americans, it was because Britain and America had a fair few advantages.

Hmm well today numbers are less important as AoE weapons have become much much more common. Honestly in a battle agisnt China i'd still give it to Americans due to a vastly superior navy and air force. As long as the U.S. keeps up a strong offensive and doesn't allow the Chinese a foothold on the mainland the U.S. would win. (this is assuming no other countires get involved.. then its too complicated)

At 5/17/09 09:19 AM, TimTheGreat wrote:
But In WW2 It wasn't because they were shitter or more cowardly than the British or Americans, it was because Britain and America had a fair few advantages.

Ok, lets say all of the world declares war on the United States, every single country at once declare war. Do you think the United States will win(WITHOUT NUKES) and still have nearly have nothing at home destroyed?

What if Russia, Britain, Germany, Spain, North Korea, Israel and China declared war on the U.S.?

I love the United States, but I know if all of the world declared war on the U.S, then the United States has a very low chance of winning.

We're not in the best defense situation right now. Obama just cut out the F-22, limiting production to a measley ~ 138. Other countries are building more and more advanced jets. We're stuck with the F35, a nice toy but not a dogfighter.

The Democrats have relinquished not our current air superiority, but our air superiority in the future. And they've cut ballistic missile defense. All of these things produce many of those "American jobs" that they claim to want to keep. Now half of southwestern Pennsylvania is going broke because Obama cut out the new presidential helicopter program.

In the years to come (but certainly not right now), who in the world can't beat the US? The answer: everybody except China, and maybe Russia. The answer should be "nobody" - and if it were, we would not see another major conventional conflict in our lifetimes.

At 5/18/09 11:06 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

I love the United States, but I know if all of the world declared war on the U.S, then the United States has a very low chance of winning.

With no Nukes, Simply Defending, Yes I think the US would win.

How would other countries get their airforces, troops and everything else over to the Americas, they wouldn't get past the USS Navy which has basically absolute power of the seas.

Yes the USS would be vastly outnumbered by troops, but that is irrelivant. The USS would be able to keep air superiority over all the Americas and the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.

military expenditures

If you look at the above link, it shows you the USA spends 651,163,000,000 on Military, the World Spends 1,470,000,000,000. Thats not a huge amount less than Half the worlds Miliary Spending done by the USA.

So USA spends 651,163,000,000
Rest of the world : 816,000,000,000

The rest of the world sum is split into over 170 countrys, where as the US is one Single Organised Military.

Where as the majority of Expendutres the rest of the world spend probably go on Soldiers pay, their AK47s, Shitty Aircraft and Tanks. And the most basic things the most simpliest of Militarys have.

The US Spends it on everything to the very Peek of Modern Military Science.

Few Countrys have Aircraft Carriers for Example, The USA doesn't just have a numerous AirCraft Carriers they have SuperCarriers which no other country has got, And the USA has something like 12 of these. Each one could defeat a small country itself.

The US Military Is Vastly Superior to the whole worlds military combined.

Only If the European Union United it's Military into a single orginisation and pushed up it's Military Budgets could there be a true Rival in the Near future.

People have a warped idea of China and Russias Military, they really are not that good at the moment.

Let's take this question seriously and ponder upon the question.

US may have the best equipment (weapons, tanks etc), but when it comes to quality, the US can only sit in the corner and whine.

Why such a radical statement?

Because the key to the future is in the past. In the Vietnam war, the Vietkong, although outnumbered, outgunned, and outmanned, won the war. In the second world war Finland (a Scandinavian country with a present population of five million) drove the attacking Soviet Union away from their country (in case you're wondering, I'm Finnish.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war
Although the numbers were:
In men 10 Soviet soldiers : 1 Finnish soldier
In tanks 200 Soviet : 1 Finnish

Finland lost 6 tanks, the CCCP lost 600.

I know, I know. We're talking about America, not the Soviet Union.

A simple answer: If every country of Europe were to unite into one, we would have a supreme military, supreme population (495 million), supreme economy (1 Euro = 1.4012 U.S. dollars), and considering the current state of the economy over at America, I'd say that should Europe unite to a single megacountry, we would.

/Hauki20

At 5/17/09 03:35 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/15/09 07:13 AM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

Thats just steriotyping. France would lose. But it has more chance than any single country after Britain.

This whole thing about France being surrender monkeys, funny as it is. Is untrue and unfair to them. It Dates back to WW2 where France fell quickly to the Nazis yes? Just to point out something to British and Americans who actually go beyond the joke of French being cowards and take it seriously.

but its true. and they didn't do shit in WWI. by the way it's spelled stereotyping not "steriotypying"

Way to get your international opinions from an old episode of The Simpsons. France surrendered pretty quickly in WWII, but statistically, France has one of the best war records of any country, at least according to this guy.

At 5/22/09 11:04 PM, Hauki20 wrote:
Because the key to the future is in the past. In the Vietnam war, the Vietkong, although outnumbered, outgunned, and outmanned, won the war.

The only reason the vietkong won was becuase back in 1970s Congress decided to cut off all funding to the vietnam war despite us having the ability to wipe them off the map, of course them having the backing of russia has something to do with it also

A simple answer: If every country of Europe were to unite into one, we would have a supreme military, supreme population (495 million), supreme economy (1 Euro = 1.4012 U.S. dollars), and considering the current state of the economy over at America, I'd say that should Europe unite to a single megacountry, we would.

The European Union's only real good military is Britain, but the military of all of the EU would be quite impressive and the Euro has actually weakened against the Dollar slightly the past year or so. And Europe is virtually already a megacountry becuase pretty much all the countries there have an open border.

well, Vietnam can.

At 5/24/09 06:10 PM, magnostreak wrote: well, Vietnam can.

That was a defensive war. We're talking about an offensive war. From what I heard, not a single battle in the war was won by enemy Vietnamese, and they still kept fighting.

lyk omg GOD WOULD WIN AGAINST THE US!

Oh wait. I'm an atheist.
Anyhow, we really are one of the more heavily armed country, with an impressive militia.
Nevertheless-100,000 people vs. Atom Bomb...who would win?

Its not always the militia, its also the technology and ability to make us go boomboomboom.
XD that was weird.

Wake up, today's USA is basically composed by a bunch of depressed emos, most of which would not even want to fight.

I think you need to wake up, sure some Americans go through stress, but that dosent mean that the 2 millionish strong U.S Military is a bunch of black haired pansies.
I'm sure Master Gunnery Sgt Hartman would like to have a word with you

Korea will by continously firing more nukes and then making up some bullshit excuse and then just recieving more liberties.

At 5/20/09 12:59 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: military expenditures

If you look at the above link, it shows you the USA spends 651,163,000,000 on Military, the World Spends 1,470,000,000,000. Thats not a huge amount less than Half the worlds Miliary Spending done by the USA.

Except when you realize that our military operations are spread out all around the world, and that we need superior capability in each of those theatres simultaneously. China, Russia, and pretty much every other country in the world only need to worry about their own territory.
A simple financial comparison just doesn't work.

" Why the f do we need borders anyway?" - Serj x)

At 5/25/09 04:30 AM, Novalence wrote: lyk omg GOD WOULD WIN AGAINST THE US!

Everyone knows God is on our side and would never turn against us.

Oh wait. I'm an atheist.

Oh, of course.

At 4/30/09 06:49 PM, AlmightyLemon wrote: Hmmm forgetting the battle, i think china would kill everybody, mainly just due to population, i believe england has the most well train soldiers though and if somebody from USA disagres just remeber the BRITISH S.A.S train the American delta force.

Remember that tiny little Japan wiped the floor with China before WW2. They might have a lot of people, but apparently it doesn't mean anything. Cut the heads off and everyone else is running around helpless.

At 5/27/09 12:27 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/25/09 04:30 AM, Novalence wrote: lyk omg GOD WOULD WIN AGAINST THE US!

Everyone knows God is on our side and would never turn against us.

Are you being serious?

If you talk solely of militaristic power, then sure, the US is a force to be reckoned with. But think, most US consumer products are made abroad in places like China and Indonesia. The American economy is dependant mostly on Arab and Russia oil. What would they acheive with a self imposed blockade? Starvation?

At 5/30/09 02:56 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Are you being serious?

No.