If America unilaterally disarmed, the only nation that could beat it militarily (and almost certainly would if it came to blows) would be Russia, and the only reason is because MAD wouldn't stand.
If America had a 100% protective ICBM shield, and actively patrolled their waters for nuclear-armed subs, then no, Russia would be defeated fairly easily.
Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, dude. Not only is America still a military power-house without nukes that any single or multiple countries would have a tooth and nail fight, destroying America would throw the world into an economic shit-ward spin; people in power like their money.
I hope your optimism is warranted. I am more pessimistic. A conventional force runs on oil. All one would have to do is cut off that oil supply first.
Originally posted by inimalist
If America unilaterally disarmed, the only nation that could beat it militarily (and almost certainly would if it came to blows) would be Russia, and the only reason is because MAD wouldn't stand.If America had a 100% protective ICBM shield, and actively patrolled their waters for nuclear-armed subs, then no, Russia would be defeated fairly easily.
The cost for Russia turning America into a glass dessert would be extremely high. Like a boxer winning the fight, but becoming a cripple for it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope your optimism is warranted. I am more pessimistic. A conventional force runs on oil. All one would have to do is cut off that oil supply first.
If America wanted to, they could hold all domestic oil production within the nation. That, plus imports from Canada (who would, unquestioningly, support America) and Mexico (very few nations who Mexico would align with above America) would easily cover the necessary resources.
The problem with oil is that it is on the world market. Its why the whole Keystone Pipeline debate is hilarious. You would buy our oil, then your companies would ship it overseas because oil is a world commodity. Same as the "drill baby drill" meme, all the oil drilled would be shipped to the world market, not preserved for American domestic use.
In a world war scenario, I can see this being one of the first changes made.
Originally posted by Robtard
The cost for Russia turning America into a glass dessert would be extremely high. Like a boxer winning the fight, but becoming a cripple for it.
I agree, I just think Russia is a clear winner in that conflict.
The long term consequences would be disastrous, if not in terms of military retaliation from NATO, at least in terms of the destruction of the world economy.
Originally posted by inimalist
If America wanted to, they could hold all domestic oil production within the nation. That, plus imports from Canada (who would, unquestioningly, support America) and Mexico (very few nations who Mexico would align with above America) would easily cover the necessary resources.The problem with oil is that it is on the world market. Its why the whole Keystone Pipeline debate is hilarious. You would buy our oil, then your companies would ship it overseas because oil is a world commodity. Same as the "drill baby drill" meme, all the oil drilled would be shipped to the world market, not preserved for American domestic use.
In a world war scenario, I can see this being one of the first changes made.
...but your point supports the "drill baby drill" meme.
Originally posted by inimalist
I agree, I just think Russia is a clear winner in that conflict.The long term consequences would be disastrous, if not in terms of military retaliation from NATO, at least in terms of the destruction of the world economy.
Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, dude. Not only is America still a military power-house without nukes that any single or multiple countries would have a tooth and nail fight, destroying America would throw the world into an economic shit-ward spin; people in power like their money.
We pretty much agree 100%. Good, good. *rubs hands menacingly*