1.U.S.A
2.China
3.Europe
4. Russia ...weird filter.
5.India
6.Brazil
Printable View
1.U.S.A
2.China
3.Europe
4. Russia ...weird filter.
5.India
6.Brazil
What a nice long impressive discussion that went around in circles.
1) Everyone thinks that should China and U.S.A. go to war, Nukes will be used.
2) Apparently all the wars in the past half century that America fought were failures
-Side note, how many battles did America lose in the Vietnam War as opposed to winning?
I enjoyed this conversation, but honestly everyone on here is incapable of being convinced of something other than their opinion :p this conversation could never end if we felt like it.
Yeah...it got derailed early on.
How come you contributed to the derailing just now and didn't rank like the first post asked? That was the point of this thread. Holey and I were going at it in the Chuck Norris thread so I moved the conversation over here.
It is an argument.... on the internet... what do you expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
In which you made your 4,000th post, Arumen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Arumen
That was a bonus.
Because I don't believe that India and Brazil deserve to be on the list, in my opinion. And as an American, I am generally biased towards America being number one, which makes it rather unfair for me to rank them. And also because as a 16 year old, I dont really know too much about the world's current events :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
I expected lolcats :/ that good enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Arumen
^%$&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I had typed out a huge post explaining my opinion of the superpowers and why but my finger slid across the back key and I lost it all, I'm not retyping it. So here!
U.S.A.
Brazil
Europe
China
Russia
India
***
I did the China vs US thing on another forum and won.
Its quite simple, first China's ICBMs are badly outdated, I doubt they could get past the missile shield of our navy, much less our EM bombs. But it won't get to nuclear war because the US has no need of it.
As long as the UN doesn't force a white peace and instead the US is allowed to go for total war then the US wins, however should the UN force white peace, the US can't win, because White Peace objectives cannot be obtained without way more time then the US population will allow.
So I'm going to assume its non-nuclear total war.
First China has no chance at either naval or air superiority. China is almost certainly however going to try the human waves tactic it used in the Korean war as that is the only way it can use its large numbers outside of the "we are fish in a bucket" strategy.
As useful as that was in Korea (They still lost their military and ability to fight after the spring offensive, if we had just pushed then, North Korea would not exist.) now however we have something a bit more powerful then WW2 era artillery.
And even without that, the fact is that we have Type three body armor on our troops and they don't. Their training is just marginally better then Somali militia and we got 20 to 1 kill rates against them using only 50 cals, rangers and helicopters.
So I predict any fight against Chinese will result in 50 to 1 losses or greater.
Now China could go all guerrilla, but look how well those tactics worked in Veitnam against our air power. They constantly needed to pretend to want to have peace talks to end the bombings else they would have lost. So the lesson here is, if your enemy wants to have peace talks, don't stop the bombings until after they have agreed to unconditional surrender or maybe just normal surrender.
Now if you are imagining a insurgency like Iraq, I think we would have learned our lesson by then, we just do what Israel did in their wars, evacuate the civilian populations from the cities, force them to go someplace else and tell them to wait there until the war is over, when the war is over, forget about them. But not like insurgency means anything, the French insurgency during WW2 didn't mean that Germany never conquered France.
That leaves economic arguments, fact is even if the war didn't void the debts, they can't call in the debts, they have to accept payments like everybody and even if they could, all we have to do is suspend social security for two years to pay it anyway. And its a total war, plenty of jobs available making ammo.
I don't support social security anyway, I always preferred elimination of retirement and no interest government medical loans to fix up handicaps instead.
And all China does is produce low quality luxury items, hardly a crippling effect on us should we lose them.
Thats my opinion, all inductive logic, deductive logic is not possible here.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2rzuuf8.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
Do they have a stable government, high-teched setup of things? Advanced military, Stable economy to feed their growing pop? Have they done anything significant in the World that can potentially make them stand out?
To tell you the truth, China's superpower is resting on the back of America's. If America's position fell, global economy may crash. Which might happen soon, given the 13 trillion dollars in debt. If US claims bankruptcy, China is screwed.
fact is, the global economy is so tied up with each other, nobody is going to war with each other over anything. Heck, the industries and politicians of each country (incl the ones on this list) use the dependence on the others to control public opinions and expectations. A real war of say, US vs. China scale would be massively destructive. Not to mention, drag the neighbours in.
So, I'm gonna try n rank them by overall influence on how the country makes a difference in how a global citizen lives:
1. The United States of America - huge consumer economy, the driver of the money wagon. Technologically, Financially, population wise, more activity and power per capita than the others. US military has a great deal of dominance and is an active army, engaged all over the world and ready to deploy.
2. India - Massive consumer and producer economy, nice balance in a way. Very self sufficient in many ways because of the diversity of economic range. Free economy makes the consumer king there (just like the US), which makes them attractive to business from other countries looking for growth so what happens in India usually ends up affecting others too. Military is very active and engaged but equipment is not always up to scratch, huge budgets allow big spending on defence hardware.
3. European Union - Probably the most stable political and economic region in the world. What can they argue about when they have so much already right. That also makes them a little less than influential too, too stable to attract growing business and thus less influential than the above 2. Growth is super slow, militarily, they are not as active or massively staffed as some others, but some members have active, well-trained armies.
4. China - Should be joint or clear number 2. BUT, they have a totalitarian government that restricts the full growth of both the economy and of their own consumer class. Secrecy and corruption combined with the autocratic government scares away a lot of foreign operations. Militarily, very strong - at least in numbers, but what standard is their equipment? Given their tendency to be secretive about things, would arms suppliers and developers around the world supply them with the best they have! China are literally the world's processing plant. How well they will fare if international trade/supply were to die out is a worry as they are as reliant on everybody else as are the others on imports from china. Sustainability of their power is a huge issue.
5. Russia - Why are they on this list!? Well, they do have a huge army and all, but how do they affect any random citizen of the world outside their immediate sphere of influence?
6. Brazil - is this a joke?
Its an extremely stable setup that hasn't failed in a long long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
Why? because there are wayyyyyyy too many conflicts of interest in a country like India, so nobody is prepared to give another section absolute control. In effect, a democracy out of pure neccessity.
Economy is way more stable and self-reliant than most ppl realise. Most of their current growth is inwards, dependant on their own consumers. Its a BIG stabilizing factor.
Technology, world influence etc.... with some of the richest private corporations in the world based out of India, they have GIGATONS of cash available to spend on stuff. Not to mention it already produces a fair % of the world's semi-highly skilled workforce. I'd say they have it there.
Quote:
Brazil - is this a joke?
Brazil is one of the few countries actually increasing its military and it is subverting American influence in Latin America. The military is as well trained as any European power and much, much larger. Quite honestly, they are the biggest threat to the U.S.
ahh...see, I could not know! Never been ever close to knowing what goes on there.
Alliance Brazil declares war against Alliance Ignorance. The Diplomatic Relationship between each other has been altered to Hostile automatically.
Peru is a country, right?
What's that? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by criplockin
1. U.S. (but not for long!)
2. China
3. European Union
4. India
5. Russia
6. Brazil
Humility - You forgot to mention that China cannot reach America.
So any land wars would be fought in China, not on our own turf.
Which... puts China on the defensive. The entire war.
Defensive wars are funny... the best you can do is "not lose". And the worst America would be able to do is stop invading.
1. Skirata (quite possibly the one who will send the first bomb)
2. United States of America
3. China (only put up here because of economy. China doesn't really invade other countries...)
4. Russia (Cold War....)
5. India (Large population like China. Economy is a'ight)
6. EU (lolwut?)
6. Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/Bilderberg Group (just for you...)
Wait.. waht?Quote:
Originally Posted by Holeypaladin
Ever hear of the CSA? They were doing pretty well with a defensive war. So well in fact that European countries were about to intervene to stop the war.
I'm not sure people realize, but as an economic power, the EU is in fact more powerful than the USA.
They're just not a united military power, which is why they come in second, in my book.
i strongly disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Holeypaladin
that is all
I'm pretty sure we all know what the EU is, bro. However, EU is dependent on all member countries for it's strength. So you're comparing a ****load of countries to one country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holeypaladin
Military:
1. USA
2. Russia
3. Europe
4. India
5. Brazil? WTF? Rather:
France in terms of nuclear weapons.
Britain in terms of naval power.
Economy:
1. Europe
2. USA
3. China
4. India
5. Germany
to the statement of China or anyone else using nukes at all. 8. 8 is the number iof nukes it would take to destroy the world and cause a nuclear winter in which teh sky will be blocked out and all sorts of plants and animals will die and become extinct, probably including us. If one is launched it will cause a chain reaction of everyone sending their nukes out. That is alot more than 8. If anyone sends a nuke out we will all die and I doubt anyone will be stupid enough to do that.
It would take a great deal more than 8 nukes to cause destruction on a global scale. The world is a great deal bigger than you realize.
There have been more than 8 andesite volcanos exploding over the course of the last few centuries, and that hasn't produced any sort of worldwide destruction.
They have similar firepower.
1. China
2. The United States
3. The European Union
4. India
5. Japan
6. Brazil
7. Indonesia
8. Turkey
9. Iran
10. South Africa
Peru
China
Skirata
Europe
India
U.S.
actually it depends on location. If it detonates in the air maybe not but it woudl cause a great deal opf radiation. Ground level would cause debris to be thrown into teh air and cause volcanoes to blow up from the shockwaves causing even more debris thrown into the air. By the time the shockwave was over the wave of debris in the air would probably kill all of US Or all of Asia or any other continent/country you want to think of.
Saying 8 nukes can destroy the world is like saying a drop of nerve gas can kill a thousand people.
When some terrorists in Japan used nerve gas on a subway.... way more than a drop of it...
A few people got a stomach flu.
And that's about it.
Granted.... 8 nukes can kill millions.
But not billions.
The fact of the matter is that it would only take ONE (1) bomb to kill both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The fallout from such an event would unravel society as we know it. Those who don’t immediately kill themselves would certainly die in the anarchy that ensued.
....ok you have a point there.
not sure on the numbers really.. but 8 nukes of the output that are kept stockpiled by countries today will wipe out a fair share of humanity, not to mention radioactively pollute massive land areas.
When you put that together with the human problem, i.e., the millions, maybe hundreds of millions of ppl that will have to migrate out of the affected and semi-affected areas, the results on the food supply, water supply etc can be catastrophic. This is without any flow on physical effects of the said nukes being counted.
You only need a few nukes to hit a few "Food Bowls" of the earth to cause major starvation, disease and enough misery to cause a few additional wars and anarchy. Its a domino effect. I seriously hope to have built a rocket to take me to mars before they do it!
I gotta ask, powerwolf....Quote:
Originally Posted by powerwolf
Have you noticed that you're the only person (besides BrotherhoodUK) that has mentioned Britain?
BTW, this totally isn't current politics. Plus, both Arumen and Ghost have posted in this thread without any complaints on the topic.
*sigh*
What the hell is going here?
Guys, if this isn't about current politics, I don't know what is.
thats maybe because we are british you know britian is a country not just soom place were poeple live...remember th US get use to trian their offiers because we are awsome at that and we do have the best airforce (only 2 thing we good at)Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
Better question: why list both the UK and EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
La Revolucion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
I feel the need to say that Peru would kick everyone back to the stone age.
Wat about Poland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Revoltion
This conversation is over.
Thread closed for political content and chauvinism.