haha, as mr.bush himself said, "don't forget poland!"the_heart_attack wrote:
dont forget america has friends.
I concur: In Canada a total of 548 homicides were reported to police in 2003. There are probably projects in America with more murders, if you believe the news. (this is probably not true, most of the murders are done by the taxi drivers and police according to this source: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#circumstance). Gotta love those urban myths. Here's a couple more so we can just get them out of the way:jeremysa1 wrote:
Canada's murder rate is twice the USA's. Look it up. (So's their rape rate--I guess screwing polar bears and wolverines in the yukon gets old so they have to get their jollies otherwise)<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
you're an idiot.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-08 03:53:29)
You really believe the hype don't you. The GDP is not a good indicator of current or future growth. Here's a couple of my favourites from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product .chitlin wrote:
nuttah you know abosolutely nothing about economics .. simply look at our gdp and know america economically is stronger than ever and only getting stronger .. thinking the deficit means that much is ignorant
wikipedia wrote:
GDP doesn't measure the sustainability of growth.
And here's one you might like from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_deficit :wikipedia wrote:
As the single most important figure in statistics it is subject to fraud, such as the usage of hedonic price indexing on official gdp numbers in the US, thereby creating investments out of nothing while statistically dampening inflation.
So really, tell me about your informed sources and why you think having a concern for the future of education, health and quality of life for those Americans who are already suffering the consequences of cuts and tax hikes displays ignorance. Please feel free to quote "George Bush" or the "Whitehouse" as the source of your economic wisdom so I can rofl.wikipedia wrote:
The Ricardian equivalence hypothesis states that this means a public deficit is exactly the same as a tax rise.
Are you still trying to say that a patrol craft can take on a carrier group? Whatever.herrr_smity wrote:
do not mistake size for power. but you are right about it if it is in open water its meant for coastal defense primarily. but if necessary they can leave the coast.
I'm pretty sure that the figher planes and bombers will be beasy fighting euro fighters and jas gripen.
but you cannot look past the fact that they have to go into coastal areas, and that's were they ar exposed to smaller faster crafts.
We don't rely on Russia for too many resources....and in the theoretica war situation presented here, it doesn't matter what China or Japan do (unless China uses nukes). China doesn't have the capability to move its forces, and Japan's military is so small, it wouldn't even matter if they fought against us.Dr.Battlefield wrote:
Sure EU has hardly resources, but Russia has enough of them. Well it's still hard to say who will win because we don't know how China and Japan(our trade partners) will act in these "war" conditions.
Absolutely correct. There is a chunk of Russia in Europe that is larger than....hmm....ANY other country in Europe. This is basic Geography...I'm really shocked how lacking some people's geographic knowledge is.imortal wrote:
ummm... actually, There IS a part of Russia in Europe. It is a country that spans two continents. I believe the Ural Mountains are the borderline between Europe and Asia. The area is referred to as Eurasia. Much more of Russia IS located in Asia, it is true. But not all of it.
India is an example of a sub-continent. Not Russia.
Yes, they are teaching us how to sink Swedish submarines, because they are acting as opfor for our Anti-Sub force. Thanks!spacepelle wrote:
(btw the swedish submarine HswMS Gotland is in the us right now and teaching our superior submarine skills to you poor sods, try to learn something and maybe you wont be whopped in WW3...)
Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-08 07:21:13)
finally some one that has brain[MAA]MI2 wrote:
Ohio class is the latest SSBN (ballistic missile class) actually, the newest one is the Virginia class, which is an SSN (attack sub, to complement the Los Angeles and Seawolf classes). But yeah, I agree that nuclear warfare shouldnt happen in the first place. Although, the subs can be outfitted with Tomahawk style conventional munitions if I recall correctly. The French de Gaulle class carriers arent the size of the Nimitz class ones like The Abraham Lincoln or the Stennis (they utilize the "ski jump" at the end, the Rafale M planes they fly off of it have a nosewheel that shoots up with hydraulic pressure) but the tradeoff is size for speed and maneuverability. The French track record isnt the fault of the nation as a whole though. The French started losing after Napoleon was gone (1815, Congress of Vienna). This had several factors, mainly because the French had an openly defeatist government in WWII that was all too happy to have a pacifist policy (not only them, but the US and all the Allied powers had pacifist policies, for more info, go look up the Munich Conference) and sit behind their Maginot line. No one was prepared for a German blitzkrieg through the Ardennes forest. What Im trying to say is, the French dont really deserve the bad rep they are getting...
EDIT: Thanks for the info Tucker, I digress on my point sheff.
its not a patrol boat it a fast missile boat (MTB) . it can move in without anyone noticing and fire its 8 missiles at a range of 150 kilometer.whittsend wrote:
Are you still trying to say that a patrol craft can take on a carrier group? Whatever.herrr_smity wrote:
do not mistake size for power. but you are right about it if it is in open water its meant for coastal defense primarily. but if necessary they can leave the coast.
I'm pretty sure that the figher planes and bombers will be beasy fighting euro fighters and jas gripen.
but you cannot look past the fact that they have to go into coastal areas, and that's were they ar exposed to smaller faster crafts.We don't rely on Russia for too many resources....and in the theoretica war situation presented here, it doesn't matter what China or Japan do (unless China uses nukes). China doesn't have the capability to move its forces, and Japan's military is so small, it wouldn't even matter if they fought against us.Dr.Battlefield wrote:
Sure EU has hardly resources, but Russia has enough of them. Well it's still hard to say who will win because we don't know how China and Japan(our trade partners) will act in these "war" conditions.Absolutely correct. There is a chunk of Russia in Europe that is larger than....hmm....ANY other country in Europe. This is basic Geography...I'm really shocked how lacking some people's geographic knowledge is.imortal wrote:
ummm... actually, There IS a part of Russia in Europe. It is a country that spans two continents. I believe the Ural Mountains are the borderline between Europe and Asia. The area is referred to as Eurasia. Much more of Russia IS located in Asia, it is true. But not all of it.
India is an example of a sub-continent. Not Russia.Yes, they are teaching us how to sink Swedish submarines, because they are acting as opfor for our Anti-Sub force. Thanks!spacepelle wrote:
(btw the swedish submarine HswMS Gotland is in the us right now and teaching our superior submarine skills to you poor sods, try to learn something and maybe you wont be whopped in WW3...)
Well, if you say so, it MUST be true. I'll take your word on it. Don't bother supplying any facts to back up your monumentally silly opinion, which is given in the face of reams of facts supplied in this thread indicating otherwiseCubefreak666 wrote:
Surely America would lose.
They wouldn't even have a chance
herrr_smity wrote:
its not a patrol boat it a fast missile boat (MTB) .
http://www.knmskjold.org/english/enghome.htm wrote:
P-960 KNM Skjold is the Royal Norwegian Navy's first Fast Patrol Craft / Littoral Combat Ship of the Skjold-class.
...This site is unofficial and made by the P-960 KNM Skjold crew.
And you only have one of them. And you think it can get throught the defenses of a Carrier Battle Group completely unnoticed? This will completely revolutionize naval warfare! All this time we have been spending billions on these ships to project power around the world, when all we needed was one Skjold!herrr_smity wrote:
it can move in without anyone noticing and fire its 8 missiles at a range of 150 kilometer.
finally someone who knows somting lolwhittsend wrote:
Well, if you say so, it MUST be true. I'll take your word on it. Don't bother supplying any facts to back up your monumentally silly opinion, which is given in the face of reams of facts supplied in this thread indicating otherwiseCubefreak666 wrote:
Surely America would lose.
They wouldn't even have a chanceherrr_smity wrote:
its not a patrol boat it a fast missile boat (MTB) .http://www.knmskjold.org/english/enghome.htm wrote:
P-960 KNM Skjold is the Royal Norwegian Navy's first Fast Patrol Craft / Littoral Combat Ship of the Skjold-class.
...This site is unofficial and made by the P-960 KNM Skjold crew.And you only have one of them. And you think it can get throught the defenses of a Carrier Battle Group completely unnoticed? This will completely revolutionize naval warfare! All this time we have been spending billions on these ships to project power around the world, when all we needed was one Skjold!herrr_smity wrote:
it can move in without anyone noticing and fire its 8 missiles at a range of 150 kilometer.
I'm not saying that we rely on Russia for resources. I'm saying that in this situation EU will rely on it. Sure, without Russian supplies EU doesn't have a chance to win. In the "war of technologies" US will win, but if Europe will invade US somehow (I don't think that it is possible) US forces will be outnumbered. Anyway I agree that US has the best military forces at this time. But it doesn't mean we will win. I say, chances are 50/50.whittsend wrote:
We don't rely on Russia for too many resources....and in the theoretica war situation presented here, it doesn't matter what China or Japan do (unless China uses nukes). China doesn't have the capability to move its forces, and Japan's military is so small, it wouldn't even matter if they fought against us.Dr.Battlefield wrote:
Sure EU has hardly resources, but Russia has enough of them. Well it's still hard to say who will win because we don't know how China and Japan(our trade partners) will act in these "war" conditions.
In the situation presented, a European invasion of the US, I give the US the nod at 90/10 odds, for all the reasons I have given in previous posts.Dr.Battlefield wrote:
I'm not saying that we rely on Russia for resources. I'm saying that in this situation EU will rely on it. Sure, without Russian supplies EU doesn't have a chance to win. In the "war of technologies" US will win, but if Europe will invade US somehow (I don't think that it is possible) US forces will be outnumbered. Anyway I agree that US has the best military forces at this time. But it doesn't mean we will win. I say, chances are 50/50.
Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-03-08 09:36:32)
LOL they would be too busy having tee n crumpets to fight.Bronco...{TFL} wrote:
we all know france would surrender before the whole thing started
Okay, let's put this into the context of specific issues, and swap Europe for the U.N. and we can go around in circles on that for a while:Dr.Battlefield wrote:
I feel like this topic go around in circles. So, I just hope this conflict will never happen.
Here here, a believable scenario!UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Okay, let's put this into the context of specific issues, and swap Europe for the U.N. and we can go around in circles on that for a while:Dr.Battlefield wrote:
I feel like this topic go around in circles. So, I just hope this conflict will never happen.
What if the U.N. decided that dropping white phosphorous and napalm (substitute) on human targets was chemical warfare and got approval to invade the U.S. with the sole objective of removing the evil warlord who authorised it and restoring the freedom of the American people (i.e. undoing the USA-PATRIOT act as a violation of human rights)?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame … 327094.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 440664.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury
Who thinks that in this situation the U.S. would win against the rest of the U.N. attempting to complete a single specific mission to force Bush and his administration in front of a war crimes tribunal? Would the soldiers morale negatively affect performance knowing that for once they are outnumbered and outgunned, defending a man not worthy of their lives, and almost certain to die just like the soldiers in Iraq must have felt as the first rounds of whiskey pete hit their homes?
America versus Everyone? Winner?
Erm, the didn't people say the first time we had a world war?whittsend wrote:
We can agree on that. We can also agree that it will probably never happen, not between US and EU or between US and PRC because the economic interests are too large to allow it.
Ok, are we going to assume that the UN WILL attempt to use force against Mainland USA? IRL, they never would, because they have no significant chance of being successful. They could not successfully land or invade fast enough to give them a chance. If they were to attempt to go through Canada or Mexico, the Neutrality of those states would be violated, and the US would enter those countries, mop up any forces which had already landed, and prevent further landings.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Who thinks that in this situation the U.S. would win against the rest of the U.N. attempting to complete a single specific mission to force Bush and his administration in front of a war crimes tribunal? Would the soldiers morale negatively affect performance knowing that for once they are outnumbered and outgunned, defending a man not worthy of their lives, and almost certain to die just like the soldiers in Iraq must have felt as the first rounds of whiskey pete hit their homes?
America versus Everyone? Winner?
What about covert ops to snatch Bush / shoot down airforce one?whittsend wrote:
Ok, are we going to assume that the UN WILL attempt to use force against Mainland USA? IRL, they never would, because they have no significant chance of being successful. They could not successfully land or invade fast enough to give them a chance. If they were to attempt to go through Canada or Mexico, the Neutrality of those states would be violated, and the US would enter those countries, mop up any forces which had already landed, and prevent further landings.
It can't be done fast enough to be feasible against the overwhelming force present in the US. For pretty much the same reason, the US would have a hard time invading Europe. We can move more troops faster than anyone else in the world...but not fast enough to outnumber all the troops in the EU. They'd mop up each Brigade as they hit the ground with overwhelming force.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-08 10:57:49)
Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-03-08 11:15:23)
Your a poor ambassador of your Country sir, Shame on you..spacepelle wrote:
haha, as mr.bush himself said, "don't forget poland!"the_heart_attack wrote:
dont forget america has friends.
HAHAHAHAAA, the us sucks!
(btw the swedish submarine HswMS Gotland is in the us right now and teaching our superior submarine skills to you poor sods, try to learn something and maybe you wont be whopped in WW3...)
