Originally posted by inimalist
I think everyone would agree that modern America would have trouble occupying medieval Afghanistan, let alone the entire world.
Not once we bring them McDonalds, Levis and porn. They'll bend over and welcome us in. /fact
On a more serious note, the 80's U.S.S.R. occupied Afghan, would have been a lot longer had the U.S. not been supplying and training the Afghani bastards. But your "the entire world" point stands.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not once we bring them McDonalds, Levis and porn. They'll bend over and welcome us in. /factOn a more serious note, the 80's U.S.S.R. occupied Afghan, would have been a lot longer had the U.S. not been supplying and training the Afghani bastards. But your "the entire world" point stands.
The USSR occupied Afghanistan the same way the US occupied Vietnam...
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The USSR occupied Afghanistan the same way the US occupied Vietnam...
Na, the the Russians were more successful, because they weren't worried about public relations with the rest of the world and basically did anything they wanted.If the U.S. hadn't interfered by proxy, they'd have been in there far longer.
U.S. could have defeated the Communist in Vietnam and set-up camp, selling the Veitnamese Coca-Cola and Pringles; it kicked itself in the balls though. Can't win a war when your citizens are gainst it, just a fact.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
How exactly would the USA occupy the territory?
That isn't the purpose of this scenario, it's coventional warfare. The modern U.S. war machine vs the combined war capabilities of the rest of the world as they had it during WWII.
So it's stealth subs vs U-boats. F-18, F14, F-35 Vs P-51, F14 ME262 and the Zero etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by Robtard
On a more serious note, the 80's U.S.S.R. occupied Afghan, would have been a lot longer had the U.S. not been supplying and training the Afghani bastards. But your "the entire world" point stands.
maybe in Kabul
I agree, they had way more control of the country, but the transnational nature of the enemy (I mean moving freely between Pak and the other Stans) and the terrain just make "occupation" incredibly difficult.
my statement was hyperbole, but Soviet control certainly wasn't absolute, and it was a bloody war of attrition before the Americans were involved. Though, ya, the Muj didn't have much to counter gunships.
EDIT: omfg proofreading...
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is the point of the scenareo surely...in a war who would win. A war involves occupation of enemy territory...P.s. the United States isn't doing to well in Afghanistan is it?
In the bigger picture yes, this was more of a military vs military scenario.
Depends. If we go by death per death, then the US is kicking much ass.
If we go by 'how close is the US in crushing the Islamo-fascist/Freedom-fighters (depends who you ask, again) and setting up a stable democracy', then the US is doing poorly.
unmanned war machines, bunker busters, jet power, Advanced global tracking and positioning. smart bombs MODERN TANKS...,you people are just oblivious if you think America would fall in this scenario. Yeah, Guerilla warfare would be a big issue, but with our missile defense systems and everything, an attack on American soil would only come from Canada or south America. War is what we are it is all we are and all we know. The world would be Americas biatch.
I'm not pissing red white and blue, i'm just saying, any modern, super powerful nation would be able to topple the world if it was facing an army outfitted with primitive weaponry. Look, ONE bomb was enough to make the world tremble. Today, we gots even bigger bombs. Granted, Japan was on the cusp of nuclear technology. They were most likely mere weeks or even days away from splitting that atom. They still need a delivery system. BAck then the only delivery system for bombs was using big ass airplanes to fly directly above desired target. There most likely wouldn't even be a war. The world would cower and say, yeah, ok you rule and we follow.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is the point of the scenareo surely...in a war who would win. A war involves occupation of enemy territory...P.s. the United States isn't doing to well in Afghanistan is it?
Dude, you don't know what you're talking about...really. The war in Iraq is a smokescreen. It is a media driven war. War is hell. People die, bad things happen and the faces of undeveloped babies lie stricken across a demolished city but that's how war is fought and won. There is no honor in war, it is kill or be killed. Every move America made in Iraq was being covered by the media. What do you think the whole, "we have to win their hearts and minds" campaign was about? The administration knew that this was not a war that could be fought on the battlefield. It was a war that was going to be fought and won through the media. You let the military go in there and do what needs to be done and it will get done within hours. That's why the actual war only lasted a few hours. The rest of the bullcrap was a policing action. America wasn't fighting a war by occupying Iraq. The militaries essentially drove around so they could be shot at and they also built some sand piles.
Do not give those fascist islamists credit they don't deserve. They were killing sitting ducks. Our government has been killing our soldiers as long as they've allowed this to go on. A soldier is trained to fight, not to drive around and build random stuff. Anyone can strap a bomb on themselves and pull a trigger. It takes precise skill to be able to snipe suicide bombers before they are able to detonate themselves.
Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, Japan was severely behind with the atomic bomb, they lacked heavy-water, among other materials. They were definitely trying their best though and intended on dropping an A-bomb (or more) on US soil.Read up on Dr. Yoshio Nishina, if it interest you.
It's been a while since i've dipped my mind back into that era. I have had a desire to experience it again. I will reference the name, thanks.