Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_countryIn service
US: 11
Russia: 1
China: 0I think the phrase "America, **** yeah!", is appropriate.
Why is Japan building two?
To carry their Gundams.
http://a2.vox.com/6a00fae8bb19f8000b01101635576a860c-500pi
Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_countryIn service
US: 11
Russia: 1
China: 0I think the phrase "America, **** yeah!", is appropriate.
Why is Japan building two?
I seriously remember reading that and being like "why do other countries even bother?"
Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
*reads article*
crylaugh
"Don't be too proud of these technological terrors the US's constructed; the ability to destroy an aircraft carrier is insignificant next to the power of a multinational guerilla force."
ha j/k
a 'lil vader.. but wow 11?
that's about 10's more than what any other country has give or take 1 ACC.
lol.
i feel good all of a sudden.
Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_countryIn service
US: 11
Russia: 1
China: 0I think the phrase "America, **** yeah!", is appropriate.
Why is Japan building two?
I don't trust the Japanese. For a self-defense force they sure are doing a lot.
Barring nukes, the fact that the US is the ultimate naval superiority in the world, combined with it's isolation by two oceans from any other world power, means that we'll never be invaded for, probably, the next hundred years at least. Ie, any war against us is doomed to failure. Almost every war we've ever fought against another country has been fought on their soil, not ours. (yeah yeah yeah, Japanese were on a few Alaskan islands for a while sixty years ago)
Of course, being in the Navy might mean I'm not so impartial when I talk about it.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Barring nukes, the fact that the US is the ultimate naval superiority in the world, combined with it's isolation by two oceans from any other world power, means that we'll never be invaded for, probably, the next hundred years at least. Ie, any war against us is doomed to failure. Almost every war we've ever fought against another country has been fought on [b]their soil, not ours. (yeah yeah yeah, Japanese were on a few Alaskan islands for a while sixty years ago)Of course, being in the Navy might mean I'm not so impartial when I talk about it. [/B]
is this highheadedness?
what about terrorism and espionage? what about long range bombardment? or submarine warfare?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
is this highheadedness?
no, the American navy, especially with the mobility granted by its carrier fleet, is the most deployable and technologically advanced in the world. The Brits have better sub tech, but afaik they have fewer, and well, they are NATO allies.
If you are talking about an actual invasion of the states by another army, the issue is that no other conventional force has anywhere near the mobility to get to them. Someone might get to Hawaii or Alaska, but what are they going to do? A Normandy style invasion on the West coast?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
what about terrorism
terrorism will always be an issue, whether it is McVeigh or Bin Laden. It does not pose a threat to America as a nation, however.
Asymmetrical warfare, afaik, does not work as a tactic of aggression. You probably can't invade someone into submission the way you can convince an invader it isn't worth the fight.
EDIT: Even looking at Al Qaeda style terrorism. 9-11 was planned to pull America into a war, not to destroy it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and espionage?
Hard to say. Spies in the right places could totally cripple the military.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
what about long range bombardment?
Few nations with ICBM tech are not NATO allies. Even then, MAD holds.
Unless you mean a non-nuclear long range bombardment, in which case I think the American military can probably handle what is being thrown at it. This is a conventional military attack, and imho there is no conventional military on the planet that could face the Americans without resorting to MAD.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
or submarine warfare?
the Brits currently have technology on their most advanced subs which allows it to detect ships leaving port in New York from the English Channel. America could be attacked by subs, but to what end. Unless it is a decapitation shot with a nuclear sub, and all the chain of command in America is broken [sic], the retaliation from America would obliterate the enemy. Unless it is Russia or China, who would subsequently obliterate America and we get MAD.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
FACT. russia and china WOULD attack the united states "IF" they had a a chance at utterly crippling it and succeding in their campaign. as things stand, they DONT. MAD applies in a nuclear age.
Don't know if painting the Russians and Chinese as wanton killers of the U.S. applies in this day and age, esp. China, as it has billions invested in America.
They don't have a chance of it as you said, without expecting an ICBM rampage in return; it's the reason why I don't think Iran is actively trying to Jihad the Western world, religious foolery aside, they like living. N. Korea on the other-hand, has a sick loon for a leader.
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't know if painting the Russians and Chinese as wanton killers of the U.S. applies in this day and age, esp. China, as it has billions invested in America.They don't have a chance of it as you said, without expecting an ICBM rampage in return; it's the reason why I don't think Iran is actively trying to Jihad the Western world, religious foolery aside, they like living. N. Korea on the other-hand, has a sick loon for a leader.
im not painting any1 as anything. {btw, not trying to be rude}. its the way EMPIRES{i.e. large and strong enough nations in this day and age} work. IF china or russia had a good enough shot they wud most definately invade and occupy america. its where the "interest" of large and powerful nations lies these days. infact the very idea of STATE or NATION has historically been based on these principles. its just in modern times with mass media that empires wud rather use subversive tactics which gives them "power" over the region without occupying it.
i.e. if any1 thinks russia or china are "better" than the current USA , they shud think again. only a lack of POWER stops them from trying to realise their own diminating urges.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not painting any1 as anything. {btw, not trying to be rude}. its the way EMPIRES{i.e. large and strong enough nations in this day and age} work. IF china or russia had a good enough shot they wud most definately invade and occupy america. its where the "interest" of large and powerful nations lies these days. infact the very idea of STATE or NATION has historically been based on these principles. its just in modern times with mass media that empires wud rather use subversive tactics which gives them "power" over the region without occupying it.i.e. if any1 thinks russia or china are "better" than the current USA , they shud think again. only a lack of POWER stops them from trying to realise their own diminating urges.
If the only thing stopping these frothing at the mouth imperial desires is military resistance why haven't they torn Asia into pieces?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not painting any1 as anything. {btw, not trying to be rude}. its the way EMPIRES{i.e. large and strong enough nations in this day and age} work. IF china or russia had a good enough shot they wud most definately invade and occupy america. its where the "interest" of large and powerful nations lies these days. infact the very idea of STATE or NATION has historically been based on these principles. its just in modern times with mass media that empires wud rather use subversive tactics which gives them "power" over the region without occupying it.i.e. if any1 thinks russia or china are "better" than the current USA , they shud think again. only a lack of POWER stops them from trying to realise their own diminating urges.
I'd disagree. Empires are more likely to hit softer targets that can help them gain power and influence.
China or Russia attacking America, even if they had a shot, has so many long term negative consequences, such as all the money both nations have invested in America, technology and science still being lead by America, etc, that they would be foolish.
To make an analogy, America COULD demolish Canada, in its sleep. The consequences would be terrible though. Both Russia and China would have their hands full with the NATO retaliation, let alone America itself.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
is this highheadedness?
what about terrorism and espionage? what about long range bombardment? or submarine warfare?
Originally posted by Kinneary
I can even tell you if some invasion force landed in South America and made their way northwards, we'd cut them off from their supplies and reinforcements as soon as we knew what was happening.
forget oceans, the Darien Gap protects us from the south 😉
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd disagree. Empires are more likely to hit softer targets that can help them gain power and influence.China or Russia attacking America, even if they had a shot, has so many long term negative consequences, such as all the money both nations have invested in America, technology and science still being lead by America, etc, that they would be foolish.
To make an analogy, America COULD demolish Canada, in its sleep. The consequences would be terrible though. Both Russia and China would have their hands full with the NATO retaliation, let alone America itself.
have we forgotten world war 2 so soon? im not saying they will DESTROY america, im saying they will OCCUPY it. technology and science is dependant on corporations which are based on minds and labour. labour, there will never be a shortage of, the minds...........well, world war 2 is a good example again isnt it?
opposing cultures are ALWAYS a threat to those whose power depends on one culture. and looking at the mechanisms and heirarchies that make power structures like countries and corporationms work. EXAPANDING, becomes inevitable.
can you think of even ONE empire who didnt invade unless the force of another empire {or mideavel hiccups like lack of long range communications and travel} stopped them?
the only DIFFERENCE now is that nukes are involved, and people are more aware and patriotic of their little islands which they refer to as nations. a destroyed country is no GOOD for an invading empire. there has to BE SUMTHING WORTH OCCUPYING.
another thing occupation does is destroy the threat of the opposition attacking you first{militarily or through media and propaganda etc}
yes, I would argue that no Empire in History has ever attacked another Empire such that it would be comparable to modern China or Russia attacking modern America.
World War 2 is a good example of powerful nations fighting, sure, but it was Germany v the world, and they got CRUSHED between Russia and America (who was also fighting a Pacific front to the war). Germany, imho, does not represent America.
Also, MAD!
Submarines from a lot of countries are all over the place, some as nuclear deterant hidden as launching platform, others just patrolling about, my Dad served on one for numerous years.
Its not that surprising they were spotted especially if they are in international waters.
As for all those countries wanting to take over the US, what utter crap. Any attempt to do so would result in the attacking countries being nuked (unless they somehow EMP pulsed the missiles & other means of attackout of action).
funny coincidence but has anyone seen this🙂