NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just having a conversation with a friend who supported the idea of a militarily strong EU and UN because "a force is needed in the world to counter the US". I remarked that the US has plainly shown its willingness to go it alone in military conflicts, so EU and UN opposition to US policy is ultimately irrelevant. He them pointed out that a strong EU and UN could oppose the US militarily, if needed, and even depose corrupt American leaders. We argued that point for nearly 20 minutes without resolution, so I present it to you:

Could the UN, the EU, or any other conceivable coalition of military organizations militarily oppose the United States of America in open warfare and emerge victorious without the conflict resulting in the use of atomic weapons?

No. Superpowers more than likely could never have a sustained conventional war because as soon as it started to look desperate for one side or the other, out come the big guns.

I was just having a conversation with a friend who supported the idea of a militarily strong EU and UN because "a force is needed in the world to counter the US". I remarked that the US has plainly shown its willingness to go it alone in military conflicts, so EU and UN opposition to US policy is ultimately irrelevant. He them pointed out that a strong EU and UN could oppose the US militarily, if needed, and even depose corrupt American leaders. We argued that point for nearly 20 minutes without resolution, so I present it to you:

Could the UN, the EU, or any other conceivable coalition of military organizations militarily oppose the United States of America in open warfare and emerge victorious without the conflict resulting in the use of atomic weapons?

Not another one of these threads...

I have seen this question many times and have reached the conclusion that defeating the US in an conventional war is impossible. Nuclear maybe, but that would only bring retalitation.

The American military budget is bigger than the next top twenty big military spending nations.

The US is a superpower, the EU is not.

I was just having a conversation with a friend who supported the idea of a militarily strong EU and UN because "a force is needed in the world to counter the US". I remarked that the US has plainly shown its willingness to go it alone in military conflicts, so EU and UN opposition to US policy is ultimately irrelevant. He them pointed out that a strong EU and UN could oppose the US militarily, if needed, and even depose corrupt American leaders. We argued that point for nearly 20 minutes without resolution, so I present it to you:

Could the UN, the EU, or any other conceivable coalition of military organizations militarily oppose the United States of America in open warfare and emerge victorious without the conflict resulting in the use of atomic weapons?

If the EU directly challenged the USA and the US was losing then the Americans would definately launch their missiles and civilization would end as we know it.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and probably Iraq. Lebanon and Somalia weren't actually full fledged wars but still. Also Korea was kind of a tie.

what narco said

but i think you should consider that the US has bases in europe and various other places around the world but other countries dont have bases in the US

that alone gives us a HUGE non nuclear advantage.

unless those damned canadians attack us with the hope of getting florida away from us!

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and probably Iraq. Lebanon and Somalia weren't actually full fledged wars but still. Also Korea was kind of a tie.

Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia weren't wars they were conflicts. Why did you say Iraq? The Iraqi regime collapsed.

No, you would die, the end.

what narco said

but i think you should consider that the US has bases in europe and various other places around the world but other countries dont have bases in the US

that alone gives us a HUGE non nuclear advantage.

unless those damned canadians attack us with the hope of getting florida away from us!


Ohhh we will...it`s just a matter of time now!!! We will send an army of 65-75yrs old to fight for us!!!


Anyway Canada and the United States will never be attacked...and if they would well I think also that the US would launch if they were on the verge of loosing.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and probably Iraq. Lebanon and Somalia weren't actually full fledged wars but still. Also Korea was kind of a tie.

Vietnam doesn't count. The U.S. never went all-out.

Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia weren't wars they were conflicts. Why did you say Iraq? The Iraqi regime collapsed.


The Bathists didn't disapear, they just went underground/Syria to keep up the fight.

Also Lebanon and Somalia show the US's reluctance to get involved in bloody ethnic fighting. Bush is kind of too stupid to realize the folley of involving one's country in a cauldron of ethnic violence where blowing up American convoys is the national past time is down right retarded.

Somalia was way to small to consider it much of anything. The only fighting was under a Battalion level scale. and whether or not it was a victory or a defeat depends on what your talking about. Bakara Market = Victory = only fighting really done = 19 Americans deaths : Estimated 1-2,000 Somalies dead.


The mission was to snatch two Abi Garab (sp?) leaders and arrest them during a meeting. Mission Accomplished.

What everyone sees is that we got bogged down in an urban fight. Lots of wounded and 2 high profile Blackhawk Crashes. (2 others crash landed back at the Base and 1 more wouldn't ever fly again). But we went in, rescued the 100ish americans(lets remember they were fighting thousands of Somalis as well) and came out. Only one POW, he was later released.


Get your facts straight before you start talking out your ass

Vietnam doesn't count. The U.S. never went all-out.
What!? We had a draft lost like 50 thousand soldiers killed several million people, attacked laos and cambodia, capet bombed the hell out of the country, agent oranged acres of rainforest. The only thing we didn't do was nuke the place cuz we were afraid of the soviets.

Ohhh we will...it`s just a matter of time now!!! We will send an army of 65-75yrs old to fight for us!!!


Anyway Canada and the United States will never be attacked...and if they would well I think also that the US would launch if they were on the verge of loosing.
HEY never underestimate an old canadian. they look feeble but they carry big sticks!!

i cant think of a scenario that would end up with the US at war with one (or many) of our current friends. we wouldnt go all out, we would do what needed to be done to control the situation.

and yes vietnam DOES count. they won fair and square. no we didnt go all out but that was OUR decision. they still won.

I believe that it would be impossible to launch a succesful military campaign against the US because once it is clear that you have lost you really have nothing left to lose so utilize nuclear weapons if that is the only possible way to stop an invasion.

For the first question the USSR was superior in brute military strength to the US and we did not launch nuclear weapons against them because of it.

Define 'win'. if that means invasion of the main land, and total and unconditional surrender. then no, you'd get nuked. can our armies be defeated and concede a war? well it happened in vietnam, thanks to kerry and his ilk, but lets not open that can of worms.

so if:

Win = millitary defeat

Then yes.

But if...

Win = unconditional surrender

Then no.

Sure. Iraq. They either murder Iraqis or get killed themselves. Either way resukts in an Iraqi victory.

Another thing we would only launch one to show our resolve at first.

Sure. Iraq. They either murder Iraqis or get killed themselves. Either way resukts in an Iraqi victory.
-k = l "results"

Sure. Iraq. They either murder Iraqis or get killed themselves. Either way resukts in an Iraqi victory.

How exactly does Iraq win if we're gunning down civilians?

Soldiers could not fire at the enemy unless (and until) fired upon.
Communist MiGs sitting on runways could be attacked; only after they were in the air, had been clearly identified, and showed 'hostile intent' could they be fired upon.
SAM missile sites could not be attacked while under construction, but only after they became operational and dangerous.
Haiphong harbor could not be mined; ships providing supplies for the enemy could not be attacked.
Bombing Hanoi was prohibited.
Transportation links to China could not be bombed.
Enemy bases, power plants, dams, factories, etc. could not be attacked.
Less than 30% of the targets the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended for bombing could be bombed.
Enemy truck depots located more than 200 yards off the road could not be bombed.
If an enemy truck on the Ho Chi Minh Trail wandered more than 204 feet off the road, it could not be bombed.
If the enemy escaped into Laos or Cambodia, you could not follow them.
Many of the weapons and equipment provided to the troops were obsolete, ineffective, or rarely functioned properly (many were older than the troops themselves)
Troops were grossly undersupplied (planes capable of carrying twenty-four bombs carried less than four, each platoon was assigned only one rifle-cleaning rod, medicine for malaria was often in short supply, etc.).

At the same time the U.S. was 'fighting' communists in Vietnam, the U.S. dramatically increased trade with the Soviets and their satellites, who supplied 80-85% of the enemy's supplies. In fact, the USSR was entirely dependent on foreign aid, and would have collapsed as far back as 1921 had it not been for the continuous transfer of Western (mostly American) aid and trade.

Other anticommunist nations, such as Rhodesia and Taiwan, offered to send troops, but were refused. In fact, the 'anticommunist' U.S. was imposing sanctions on Rhodesia at the time they were trading with the communists! (While Taiwan was not allowed to send troops, they did send some military advisors and repairmen.)

In addition, many anticommunist nations such as Malaysia, South Africa, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Spain, and Portugal, would undoubtedly have sent troops if asked.

The U.S. could have defeated communism in Vietnam without deploying a single troop, had they not imposed Ngo Dinh Diem (who oppressed everyone but the communists, alienated the population, and de-moralized the nation), encouraged the ousting of Bao Dai (the symbol of Vietnamese unity, and one of the few men the communists feared) and the buying off, destruction, etc. of the Binh Xuyen, Cao Dai, and Hoa Hao.

Without gettin into the Iraq debate, the way the EU would appose the US would be mainly economic. There would be no point in military action but putting a few taxes here and there could do damage to an unstable economy. But they wouldnt do that either right now coz the EU and the UN dont have a pair of balls between them.

It depends; there are a few nations or organizations that have the power to match the US in certain area and at certain times. The UN is a nonstarter because it has no inherent military power in and of itself. Most UN peace keepers are all but useless when actual combat occurs. The two that stand the best chance are China and the EU. Russia also has the potential to thwart the US conventionally, but only within its own borders.

China would be impossible for the US to successfully invade and their growing sophistication is making any combat on China's periphery a much chancier thing. The US equipment and firepower is still light years ahead of what China has, but it doesn’t have the facilities to bring it all to bear, in the event that China say..invaded Taiwan. In any conflict with China the US is unlikely to launch a nuclear weapon against the Chinese unless the Chinese use a WMD against the US or an ally first.

The EU is even better suited to stopping the US. The level of their equipment technology and the professionalism of the troops are roughly equivalent. The US has better support equipment and the ability to move large amounts of troops and goods. The EU could have the possibility of defeating US military operations in Europe, North Africa, and possibly the Middle East. This is because those areas are close to the EU heartland and much easier to cover for the EU than for the US. Considering the SSBN fleets of France and the UK, the US would not be the first to use nukes.

China and the EU have the ability to defeat the US at certain locations, but on a neutral ground the US military could easily defeat either. Any attempt to attack North America would be suicide; I doubt that any of the invasion force would even reach sight of land. Any attempt to preemptively attack the US with nuclear weapons would not succeed due to the redundancy of the nuclear triad. Even in a peaceful environment there are usually 4 Ohio class SSBNs at sea carrying over 750 warheads, enough to wipe out any enemy.

It depends; there are a few nations or organizations that have the power to match the US in certain area and at certain times. The UN is a nonstarter because it has no inherent military power in and of itself. Most UN peace keepers are all but useless when actual combat occurs. The two that stand the best chance are China and the EU. Russia also has the potential to thwart the US conventionally, but only within its own borders.

China would be impossible for the US to successfully invade and their growing sophistication is making any combat on China's periphery a much chancier thing. The US equipment and firepower is still light years ahead of what China has, but it doesn’t have the facilities to bring it all to bear, in the event that China say..invaded Taiwan. In any conflict with China the US is unlikely to launch a nuclear weapon against the Chinese unless the Chinese use a WMD against the US or an ally first.

The EU is even better suited to stopping the US. The level of their equipment technology and the professionalism of the troops are roughly equivalent. The US has better support equipment and the ability to move large amounts of troops and goods. The EU could have the possibility of defeating US military operations in Europe, North Africa, and possibly the Middle East. This is because those areas are close to the EU heartland and much easier to cover for the EU than for the US. Considering the SSBN fleets of France and the UK, the US would not be the first to use nukes.

China and the EU have the ability to defeat the US at certain locations, but on a neutral ground the US military could easily defeat either. Any attempt to attack North America would be suicide; I doubt that any of the invasion force would even reach sight of land. Any attempt to preemptively attack the US with nuclear weapons would not succeed due to the redundancy of the nuclear triad. Even in a peaceful environment there are usually 4 Ohio class SSBNs at sea carrying over 750 warheads, enough to wipe out any enemy.

Excellent point although I do believe that there are a good deal more Ohio class subs at sea than four at any given time.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and probably Iraq. Lebanon and Somalia weren't actually full fledged wars but still. Also Korea was kind of a tie.

The Korean War is not over.....

At this current time period, no. Even with conventional arms, the world is screwed, as the US spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. A buildup is possible, but tricky. For one, with the exception of the EU and Israel, the US is at least a generation ahead of every other military. The EU and Israel don't nearly have enough of the arms to challenge the US. For another, the US government, if it really wanted to, can run the global economy into the ground, and therefore punish any nation building arms with harsh sanctions, if not actions. It might be possible in fifty years, but it'd still be extremely hard. Besides, if the US wins the race to weaponize space, the US is guranteed military superiority for at least a few generatiions.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and probably Iraq. Lebanon and Somalia weren't actually full fledged wars but still. Also Korea was kind of a tie.
Vietnam and Korea cannot really be considered military losses, same with Somalia. It was politically expedient to do what was done at the time.

what narco said

but i think you should consider that the US has bases in europe and various other places around the world but other countries dont have bases in the US

that alone gives us a HUGE non nuclear advantage.

unless those damned canadians attack us with the hope of getting florida away from us!

Do you think the European countries would allow the USA to stay in their European bases if they were thinking of war? The first steps would be collapse of political relations between the USA and other countries, and once it reached a certain point the USA would be asked to leave their military bases in Europe.

Do you think the European countries would allow the USA to stay in their European bases if they were thinking of war? The first steps would be collapse of political relations between the USA and other countries, and once it reached a certain point the USA would be asked to leave their military bases in Europe.
Can we then assume a general ramping up of military production in the US? And if our leaders thought invasion imminent they would probably abolish gun laws and issue a gun to any citizen that would take one.

Can we then assume a general ramping up of military production in the US? And if our leaders thought invasion imminent they would probably abolish gun laws and issue a gun to any citizen that would take one.

Of course, wouldn't it be virtually impossible for this kind of war to happen without an escalation of tensions?

I believe that it would be impossible to launch a succesful military campaign against the US because once it is clear that you have lost you really have nothing left to lose so utilize nuclear weapons if that is the only possible way to stop an invasion.

For the first question the USSR was superior in brute military strength to the US and we did not launch nuclear weapons against them because of it.

Odd, what makes you think that the USSR was superior in military strenght? After the fall of the Soveit Union it became appearent that the military had become a hollow force. Looked great in parades but the equipment was old, antiquated, and falling into disrepair, supplies for maintenance were few and the moral of the troops was low as a result.

The one true threat they did pose was their nuclear capability which they did keep well maintained. But acuracy was poor, but handlily made up for by building larger warheads.

As for stopping an invasion. Well unless you have a huge secret submarie troop carrying fleet that no one knows about we are going to be asking lots of questions on the eventual destination of several thousand troop carriers approaching our shores once they come within 100 miles or so...if the answer isnt a really good one your going to have a lot of wet soldiers with 90 miles or so to swim.

Invade the US? Chances Slim,
Defeat the US militarily Right now? Chances None

We do spend a great deal on the military and it seems to have paid off. To the best of my knowledge there are two military forces comparable in training and capabilities Isreal and Britain. Other than that the US forces are anywhere from 20 years to 75 years in advance of the rest of the world.

And we wouldnt nuke ya....B-2 Bombers can carry conventional warheads as well...and you would never see it coming.

The more wars America fight, the less fair they become. Todays technology is not supposed to be in the hands of America or any other country. If America will bomb cities to win a war they could easily win in any theatre, how can you trust them with nuclear weapons? Nukes are too destructive and inspecific. Yet, they build the Neutron bomb which is essentially a nuclear bomb but doesn't cause structural damage, so US corporations could immediately move into the empty area to make a profit. Okay, not true, but I see no other reason why you would spare the buildings if the civilians are to die.

I'm actually surprised they haven't nuked Bejing yet. China has a much larger army and a growing economy, yet no restraints. The US haven't fought an equal power since WWII, and they where rather quick with destroying two major cities then. Not to mention terror bombings in Germany. I doubt a fair fight will happen between the US and any equal power. The worst that could happen against the EU or UN is occupation and removal of the current president. However, there are plenty of generals and presidents who would go berserk the moment an enemy soldier set foot in America and launch dozens of missiles on major cities, killing millions for no reason. And for what? To save the honor of a jingoist moron. If your opponent isn't evil and has no malice planned for the US, then you shouldn't do evil as a US president either. No bombing of cities, no nuclear weapons. Before WWI there was actually a way to win a war without killing any civilians, that was to fight only those who pose a threat. After Dresden, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other places I feel that the US no longer understands that method.

It´s funny that most opinions in the thread mark the EU as US most probable challenger, but I believe truth is that US should be more afraid of the rising Chinese nation than of the old continent.

Sad as it is for an active pro-european militant, anyone that follows continental politics will note that european governments are being unable to shape adequately our Union. We have advanced a lot in economic politics, but other issues as european common international policies are still to be seen, as proven in the US-Irak conflict.

We hace to admit that EU lacks of things like a common language, culture or sentiment that would greatly help european construction, as they helped two centuries ago the US in their path to become a superpower. Therefore, before EU can oppose the US with a chance to overcome lot has to be done to create a real political union before. And even if we could oppose, I, like many other europeans, think EU-US relations should be based in cooperation, not in confrontation.

In the other side we have pseudo-communist China, that should not be seen as the "red hordes" anymore. Chinese "nomenklatura" is no longer interested in the global expansion of marxism or in cultural revolutions, but in develop its economy, improve their army and consolidate as far east mayor power.

It is only a matter of time before US and Chinese interests clash. There are some tensions already, like US position towards Taiwan, or China´s nuclear weapons. And nobody knows what will happen the day a mayor crisis arises between both countries.

China is awakening and, as Napoleon predicted, the day she wakes the World shall tremble.

We would not nuke someone if they won a war against us, unless they were an unbelievably huge thread.

The more wars America fight, the less fair they become. Todays technology is not supposed to be in the hands of America or any other country.

Uhmmmm,,,,how is that again?..Once a technology is able to be developed it will be...We humans are just too dang inventive and curious to not see if we can make something work. As far as being less fair....would it be fairer to only arm our soldiers with weapons equivelent of the enemy? Would lead to Much Bloodier conflicts and higher casualties on both sides.....and this is a good thing?

Much better in my opinion that one side has such a superior edge that it becomes quickly appearent to the other side that to continue the fight is to die and so their only option is to sue for peace and end the conflict as quickly as possible


If America will bomb cities to win a war they could easily win in any theatre, how can you trust them with nuclear weapons? Nukes are too destructive and inspecific.

Note with the exception of WWII we have not used a nuclear weapon. Also look at the expendature of funds we have made to develop and produce the so called "smart bombs". Do you think we spent billions doing this on a whim? No, we did this so that we could deliver the mimium amount of destruction needed to achieve the objective, in the hope of spairing civilian lives and property. For the cost of the Smart Bombs used at the begining of the current conflict we could have carpet bombed Bagbad flat along with a dozen other cities,,,,by your own words you believe we would have done just that....so why didnt we? And if your speaking of the bombs that did fall in Bagbad they were aimed at specific targets designed to cripple the abilities of the leadership to perform command and control functions...its that technological edge spoken of earlier...


I'm actually surprised they haven't nuked Bejing yet. China has a much larger army and a growing economy, yet no restraints. The US haven't fought an equal power since WWII, and they where rather quick with destroying two major cities then. Not to mention terror bombings in Germany.

One, why do you feel we would Want to nuke anyone? Mutually Assured Descruction is still a viable concept and as an American if we dropped a nuke in this day and age I would expect the rest of the world to take us to task for such a horrific action.

Now if said nuke was in response to a strike on US city or cities by a WMD such as nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapon I would hope that you would respect our right to respond in kind to the aggressors of such an attack....or would you?

Your right about not fighting an equal power since WWII, can you name one in existance today? The attack on Iraq was based on faulty information about Iraq's WMD programs, information that the UN and most of the countries of the EU and Russia believed to be true by the way....so if nearly everyone believed it to be true why is it such a point of contention when it turns out not to be true? Whoever said that intellegence gathering is always 100% accurate....or 90%?...or 60% for that matter?

As to the two major cities...I would like to direct your attention to Okinawa and what happened there when the US forces landed. By one estimate over 12,000 CIVILIANS committed suicide than risk being dishonored by capture. If this cultural characteristic held true in Japan how many suicides should we have expected in the mainland? Also how many causualties on both sides would have happened as the war ground on for another 4, 6, 18 months? This is exactly what I meant by saying it is Better that one side have a technological edge that makes it obvious to continue is to die. Given such a choice rational people choose to seek surrender terms and Spare thier population the additional causualties that dragging the war on will cause...and this is a bad thing?

As to the terror bombings in Germany (Dresden), yes your right that was not the right thing to do....And I dont know why the allies felt they had to do it that way....perhaps you have information I do not...

I doubt a fair fight will happen between the US and any equal power. The worst that could happen against the EU or UN is occupation and removal of the current president.

Uhmmmm...not sure what you mean.....Occupy the UN?....Where does it exist? Or do you mean have the EU or UN occupy the US and remove the current president? See above about technological advantages....


However, there are plenty of generals and presidents who would go berserk the moment an enemy soldier set foot in America and launch dozens of missiles on major cities, killing millions for no reason.

Do you mean EU or UN Presidents or generals?..As far as Our own President...well...take a look at 9/11...
Do you think that was a fairly large attack?..Or at least more offensive than a single enemy solder setting foot on American Soil?.....
So what did our President do in retaliation?
Did he turn Afganistan into a parking lot?...Did he kill every living person in the country?...is Afganistan radioactive?
No it isnt...in fact it just had the First election in its 5000 year history....Dang,,,wonder how that happened? To top it all off women voted....in the Millions... wonder where they got the idea that they had a right to vote.....wonder who insisted that they had such a right...I wonder at the liberal veiwpoint that can scream about oppresion and womens rights from the hilltops and when something is done to advance womens rights somewhere how strangely silent they fall if America is the one who advances those rights....



And for what? To save the honor of a jingoist moron.

Good thing we voted in the current president since his SAT scores were higher than Kerry's...cause then you would have had even more reason to call the president a moron....I just wonder...When have you had the opportunity to sit down and speak with the President get to knnow his character and gaugehis intellegence? Or do you take your opinion's second or thrid hand and believe them to be absolute truth?

If your opponent isn't evil and has no malice planned for the US, then you shouldn't do evil as a US president either.

Unfortunately your using a word ill defined...Evil.....
How about mass graves....do those qualify as evil?
How about cutting the tongues out of your detractors...is that evil?
How about rape rooms?,,,are those evil?
How about using chemical weapons on your own citizens...is that evil?
Attempting to kill a former US president is that an example of malice toward the US?
If you make plans to attack US owned facilities in a second country (Voice of America Radio station in Turkey ) is that an example of malice toward the US?
If you openly praise the hijackers of 9/11 and call for more is that an example of malice toward the US?

No bombing of cities, no nuclear weapons.

We used Nukes Where exactly? Other than WWII....I think we covered that earlier

Before WWI there was actually a way to win a war without killing any civilians, that was to fight only those who pose a threat. After Dresden, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other places I feel that the US no longer understands that method.

Oh Really? Is it your intention to state that there were no civilian causualties during the Napoleonic wars? Or the French Revolution? Or the US Civil War? Or the War of 1812? Or the Revolutionary war? Or the 100 Year war? Or any of the Crusades? Or the wars of Conquest during the Roman expansion?....Or the Sack of Rome at the fall of the Roman Empire? That all of the Empires throughout history during their expansion and collapse did not involve massive civilian casualties?

And again...Smart Bombs....remember those?...take down a specific building while leaving the apartment building beside it standing? ( Sorry about the windows though ) Long range ( >1 mile ) accurate shooting so as to try to take out the guy with the gun and not the kids he is standing behind? Addmittedly nothing is perfect and there is and always will be collateral damage...unless of course an army wants to set a date and a time to meet us somewhere away from any civilian population....but that would be suicide for them and they know it.... so dont expect a rational general to ever propose such a thing

So saying that we just dont care about massive civilian casualties is ridiculous....Are you that misinformed or just making an jingonistic statement for your own emotional satisfaction and the chance to shape the opinion of others into your own misinterpretation of history?

Just curious

It is - technically - not possible to win a war against the US.
The only one who can win against the US is the US itself - if it gets war-tired (like during the Vietnam war). As long as the political leadership of the US can avoid that the US is unbeatable.

Attack the US from within with thousands of sleeper cells and they couldn't nuke you - they'd be nuking themselves. Oh, and make it so that all the sleeper cells have a fake tooth full of sarin gas in case they are captured

Well sure, I mean what's that got to...oh. I thought it said "without getting naked".

Well sure, I mean what's that got to...oh. I thought it said "without getting naked".
Ha, there is no way of winning a war without getting naked

It´s funny that most opinions in the thread mark the EU as US most probable challenger, but I believe truth is that US should be more afraid of the rising Chinese nation than of the old continent.

Truthfully I believe that while relations are strained at the moment the EU and the US will almost always find common ground to agre on...and even where we can not I dont think it would be in either of our interests to do much more than agree to disagree...we have too much in common and too much history together for a split between us to come to much more than that....now wait 50 years and the answer might be different....and as to the rising Chinese Threat....see below...

Sad as it is for an active pro-european militant, anyone that follows continental politics will note that european governments are being unable to shape adequately our Union. We have advanced a lot in economic politics, but other issues as european common international policies are still to be seen, as proven in the US-Irak conflict..

Oh so true...Your individual "states"? are still acting as independent countries...while this isnt a bad thing in and of itself it does tend to make forming a single unified policy difficult at best...and to have the President of France tell prospective EU members that "they missed an opportunity to shut up" when they vocally supported the US while the Prime Minister of Britan was openly supporting the US shows just how independent the Nations really are...


We have to admit that EU lacks of things like a common language, culture or sentiment that would greatly help european construction, as they helped two centuries ago the US in their path to become a superpower. Therefore, before EU can oppose the US with a chance to overcome lot has to be done to create a real political union before. And even if we could oppose, I, like many other europeans, think EU-US relations should be based in cooperation, not in confrontation.

^5...Exactly! We are stronger together than apart...and I believe that we should be able to find a way of merging our interests on most issues.......However....I think if you believe we are screwing things up you should tell us so...I agree with President Chirac in this "that a real friend tells you the truth"....And His veiw of the Iraq situation was as valid as anyone elses...I just happen to think he was wrong...and with the Oil for Food scandle in the UN starting to come out I begin to wonder at the motivations behind some of the countries that opposed the ouster of Saddam Hussien

In the other side we have pseudo-communist China, that should not be seen as the "red hordes" anymore. Chinese "nomenklatura" is no longer interested in the global expansion of marxism or in cultural revolutions, but in develop its economy, improve their army and consolidate as far east mayor power.

It is only a matter of time before US and Chinese interests clash. There are some tensions already, like US position towards Taiwan, or China´s nuclear weapons. And nobody knows what will happen the day a mayor crisis arises between both countries.

China is awakening and, as Napoleon predicted, the day she wakes the World shall tremble.

All this is true...but I also see some changes in the character of the Chinese government as the "Old Gaurd" gives way to the next generation...as you say less interested in exporting marxism...more interested in developing their economic and military strenght....It may well be that a clash will take place....it may be that a new round of Cold wars will happen with the major powers staying out of direct conflict...Give the situation a decade or 3....we may see a way of merging interests even there....

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Attack the US from within with thousands of sleeper cells and they couldn't nuke you - they'd be nuking themselves. Oh, and make it so that all the sleeper cells have a fake tooth full of sarin gas in case they are captured

While it was another thread...we Americans do have that pesky right to bear Arms...I am afraid Sleeper Cells would find themselves hunted down by vigilanties... :sniper:

Not a pretty picture...

Well sure, I mean what's that got to...oh. I thought it said "without getting naked".

Oh My!.....I hadnt thought of that!....if you sent your women here naked the army sneaking up behind them...( say an hour later ) might find us disarmed.....so to speak...

Dang....got to work out a defense against naked women....thats just not Right....Should be against the Geneva Convention that one.... :)

The more wars America fight, the less fair they become. Todays technology is not supposed to be in the hands of America or any other country. If America will bomb cities to win a war they could easily win in any theatre, how can you trust them with nuclear weapons? Nukes are too destructive and inspecific. Yet, they build the Neutron bomb which is essentially a nuclear bomb but doesn't cause structural damage, so US corporations could immediately move into the empty area to make a profit. Okay, not true, but I see no other reason why you would spare the buildings if the civilians are to die.

I'm actually surprised they haven't nuked Bejing yet. China has a much larger army and a growing economy, yet no restraints. The US haven't fought an equal power since WWII, and they where rather quick with destroying two major cities then. Not to mention terror bombings in Germany. I doubt a fair fight will happen between the US and any equal power. The worst that could happen against the EU or UN is occupation and removal of the current president. However, there are plenty of generals and presidents who would go berserk the moment an enemy soldier set foot in America and launch dozens of missiles on major cities, killing millions for no reason. And for what? To save the honor of a jingoist moron. If your opponent isn't evil and has no malice planned for the US, then you shouldn't do evil as a US president either. No bombing of cities, no nuclear weapons. Before WWI there was actually a way to win a war without killing any civilians, that was to fight only those who pose a threat. After Dresden, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other places I feel that the US no longer understands that method.

No offence intended Water Cove, but that is probably the most ignorant post I have ever seen on this board. AAhhzz’s response covers most of the obvious fallacies in your post, but I’m going to point out a few more.

1) The Neutron Bomb - This was designed for battlefield use on the European front against Soviet forces. NATO’s policy was that tactical battlefield nuclear weapons would likely be used in the event of a Soviet invasion because NATO’s conventional forces were believed to be too weak to stop it on their own. This policy, for good reason, made front line states like West Germany queasy because they didn’t want their country turned into a radioactive wasteland. The Neutron weapons would affect only a limited area and had almost no after effects. Civilians in shelters would not be affected, so it was believed that the civilian and economic cost would be limited. After the breakup of the Soviet Union these weapons were withdrawn from service.
2) Quickly destroying two major cites – Umm you do know that WW II lasted for over 6 years? That the US was at war for almost 4 before it dropped the bombs? That most analysts believe that a conventional invasion was required to force the Japanese surrender, which would cause hundreds of thousands of Allied causalities and the death of millions of Japanese? You might disagree with the Decision to use atomic weapons, but it is pure ignorance to call the decision quick.
3) German Terror Bombings – The US is only peripherally involved in these raids. The 8th US air force conducted daylight raids on military and industrial targets. Now the accuracy of the bombers did not live up to pre-war hype and a lot of their targets were in or adjacent to urban areas, so the bombing did cause a lot of civilian damage, but they were not the target. Unlike the RAF which conducted nighttime raids on population centers in order to break the will of the German people. The two most famous and devastating “Terror” raids, Dresden and Hamburg, were planned and mostly executed by the British RAF.
4) The Jingoistic moron – So if the US military launched an invasion of France because we were annoyed with Chirac and wanted him gone, that you don’t think the French would respond with Nucs? I suggest you do some research into French nuclear policy, particularly regarding a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. First of all the US wouldn’t need nucs we could stop any conceivable invasion, but it would not be in defense of the President, but in defense of our self determination.
5) No Civilian casualties – As AAhhzz pointed out, there have been many wars in the past in which civilians have been killed (particularly the 100 Years War). The reason that there were fewer civilians killed on the battlefields was that the battles took place were there were no civilians (what a concept!). Now if the enemies of the US would fight us in areas without civilians we would be very happy to engage them there. However they are not that stupid, no matter that the tactic is morally deplorable, they know there best chance for military and psychological advantage lies in camouflaging themselves against a civilian populations. They can not stand up to the US in the open, so they hide in the crowds. This constrains the US rules of engagement and causes innocents death no matter how hard the military tried to be “surgical” and “precise”. It is not the US that has brought the civilians into the battlefield it is our enemies.

While it was another thread...we Americans do have that pesky right to bear Arms...I am afraid Sleeper Cells would find themselves hunted down by vigilanties... :sniper:

Not a pretty picture...
Vigilantes? You mean, in a country where thousands of gun deaths are caused by accidental shootings? Please. A vigilante group against a crack squad of highly trained soldiers who operate by stealth wouldn't have a hope in hell.

After taking over, though. Then there would be a problem a la the british soldiers who were killed in Iraq after they were holed in the middle of Basra and set upon by hundreds of angry Iraqis

No.

Because America don't like to lose. Am I right?

Soldiers could not fire at the enemy unless (and until) fired upon.
Communist MiGs sitting on runways could be attacked; only after they were in the air, had been clearly identified, and showed 'hostile intent' could they be fired upon.
SAM missile sites could not be attacked while under construction, but only after they became operational and dangerous.
Haiphong harbor could not be mined; ships providing supplies for the enemy could not be attacked.
Bombing Hanoi was prohibited.
Transportation links to China could not be bombed.
Enemy bases, power plants, dams, factories, etc. could not be attacked.
Less than 30% of the targets the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended for bombing could be bombed.
Enemy truck depots located more than 200 yards off the road could not be bombed.
If an enemy truck on the Ho Chi Minh Trail wandered more than 204 feet off the road, it could not be bombed.
If the enemy escaped into Laos or Cambodia, you could not follow them.
Many of the weapons and equipment provided to the troops were obsolete, ineffective, or rarely functioned properly (many were older than the troops themselves)
Troops were grossly undersupplied (planes capable of carrying twenty-four bombs carried less than four, each platoon was assigned only one rifle-cleaning rod, medicine for malaria was often in short supply, etc.).

At the same time the U.S. was 'fighting' communists in Vietnam, the U.S. dramatically increased trade with the Soviets and their satellites, who supplied 80-85% of the enemy's supplies. In fact, the USSR was entirely dependent on foreign aid, and would have collapsed as far back as 1921 had it not been for the continuous transfer of Western (mostly American) aid and trade.

Other anticommunist nations, such as Rhodesia and Taiwan, offered to send troops, but were refused. In fact, the 'anticommunist' U.S. was imposing sanctions on Rhodesia at the time they were trading with the communists! (While Taiwan was not allowed to send troops, they did send some military advisors and repairmen.)

In addition, many anticommunist nations such as Malaysia, South Africa, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Spain, and Portugal, would undoubtedly have sent troops if asked.

The U.S. could have defeated communism in Vietnam without deploying a single troop, had they not imposed Ngo Dinh Diem (who oppressed everyone but the communists, alienated the population, and de-moralized the nation), encouraged the ousting of Bao Dai (the symbol of Vietnamese unity, and one of the few men the communists feared) and the buying off, destruction, etc. of the Binh Xuyen, Cao Dai, and Hoa Hao.

interesting points, roach and i cant say as i disagree with anything but your conclusion.

yeah the us COULD have won vietnam. but WE DIDNT and therefore it is possible to defeat the us without getting nuked.

interesting points, roach and i cant say as i disagree with anything but your conclusion.

yeah the us COULD have won vietnam. but WE DIDNT and therefore it is possible to defeat the us without getting nuked.

Vietnam is an unusual case. We won militarily and pulled out. Internal politics prevented us from redeploying when the North was undoing all that we had done. I suppose the most accurate description of our loss in Vietnam is that we, or more specifically the left in America, defeated ourselves.

Do you think the European countries would allow the USA to stay in their European bases if they were thinking of war? The first steps would be collapse of political relations between the USA and other countries, and once it reached a certain point the USA would be asked to leave their military bases in Europe.
mostly i think that the US and europe will never ever get into a war. so in the eventuality of some kind of insanity that WOULD lead to war, i can assume anything i want including sudden multi-front attacks from within and without using our existing bases, naval forces that would not be suspicious as they came up european waters, and fighter jets that wouldnt take but a couple hours at most to reach europe from american bases outside europe.

Vietnam is an unusual case. We won militarily and pulled out. Internal politics prevented us from redeploying when the North was undoing all that we had done. I suppose the most accurate description of our loss in Vietnam is that we, or more specifically the left in America, defeated ourselves.

and again i dont disagree with you, well except for the part where we won militarily.

how does that negate our loss or the possibility of it happening AGAIN?

and again i dont disagree with you, well except for the part where we won militarily.

how does that negate our loss or the possibility of it happening AGAIN?

You're characterizing as a loss what was basically just us quitting. The United States has never lost militarily, but we have gotten tired and quit. We got tired and quit in Korea. We actually got victory in Vietnam, had a peace treaty, and pulled out. We refused to go back in though and once Congress had declared that it wouldn't spend anymore money on defending S. Vietnam the North took that as a green light to disregard the agreement. If you want to call those losses then go ahead, but don't fool yourself into believing we lost the ability to fight and win. If you want to recreate those kinds of 'losses' then thats very possible in my estimation. If you want to meet the US in conventional battle in a nation against nation struggle though, forget it. If you want to invade US territory and conquer it, fat chance.

Vigilantes? You mean, in a country where thousands of gun deaths are caused by accidental shootings? Please. A vigilante group against a crack squad of highly trained soldiers who operate by stealth wouldn't have a hope in hell.

After taking over, though. Then there would be a problem a la the british soldiers who were killed in Iraq after they were holed in the middle of Basra and set upon by hundreds of angry Iraqis

Hummm...Good Point about the disparity in training I think you *might* be right that the initial round would go to the sleeper cells, suprise being one of their most effective weapons. I can imagine them seizing control of areas inside the US but holding them?....

Like the Basra incident you noted I was thinking of the disparity in numbers....unless you have thousands of sleeper cells they are going to be seriously outgunned by the private gun owners. Then add what is left of the Police, Swat teams, National Gaurd Units, anarchist groups and so forth and it becomes a scavenger hunt to see who can collect the most kills.

My main concern is that if the sleeper cells were particularly effective in causing wide spread damage and panic / terror the public response would initially be to hunker down and start planning and then act...and I fear that the actions would tend to be .....uhmmm....barbaric....and not all that discriminating...far too many would be quoting the motto "Kill them all and let God sort them out",,,and that is something I would consider reprehensable and unforgivable.

And what the nuclear attack submarine fleet would do is anyones guess...just God help them if a counrty is identified as the source of the invasion...

One hopes for a more civilized world...and I dont truthfully see this as a possibility....but if it came to this it would make previous wars look like training sessions....

and again i dont disagree with you, well except for the part where we won militarily.

how does that negate our loss or the possibility of it happening AGAIN?

We did win militarily. We never lost a single battle to the enemy. The enemy also lost far more troops than we did.

US Forces
Killed in action: 47,378
Wounded in action: 304,704
Total: 352,082

ARVN
Killed in action: 223,748
Wounded in action: 1,169,763
Total: 1,393,511

Australia
Killed in action: 469
Wounded in action: 2,940
Total: 3,409

Korea
Killed in action: 4,407
Wounded in action: 17,060
Total: 21,467

Thailand
Killed in action: 351
Wounded in action: 1,358
Total: 1,709

New Zealand
Killed in action: 83
Wounded in action: 212
Total: 295

Total
Killed in action: 276,436
Wounded in action: 1,496,037
Total: 1,772,473

*NVA/VC
Killed in action: 1,100,000
Wounded in action: 660,000
Total: 1,760,000

*Figures released by the Vietnamese government on April 3, 1995

(OOC: The number of U.S. deaths does not take into account deaths unrelated to combat, such as drowning, vehicle accidents, et. al.)

bump

I've been hearing a lot about China in this thread, but I highly doubt it would come to a war between the US and China, because neither country would walk away intact.

Shit, China isn't even willing to risk military tension with the US, look at the situation in Korea. When Korea refused to allow inspectors in, China forced them, simply because they had the foresight to realize that a war in the region would have eventually led to an armed confrontation between the US and China.

Also, I see a lot of people are discounting Russia, what this fails to take into account is that Russia has the second fastest growing economy in the world (Tailing China by a small percent). Both China and Russia benefit enormously from trade alliances with the US, and I see no reason why these wouldn't manifest as military alliances as well, especially if it meant war with the EU. War with the EU would allow Russia to seize highly industrialized territory, and allow China to increase its economic position by destroying competition.

I don't have any illusions though, a war with the EU would be long and bloody, especially if the Middle East got involved.

Anyways, to the specific question, I don't believe America would use Nukes during a war, except when facing the very real possibility of defeat. Before that point, I think we would rely on Terrorist attacks (Via Airborne Raids, specials forces strikes on the ground, and attacks on ocean traffic) as well as the destruction of infrastructure (Ala WWII).

I would be interested to see how the introduction of new technologies in the near future would affect such a conflict (Ie K2, OICWS, OCWS MG, Hypersonic Aircraft, integral electronics). Also, I'd be very interested to see how much a part Electronic Warfare would play, if NSA hackers could cripple European Electronic banking, they could effectively freeze civilian movements.

We did win militarily. We never lost a single battle to the enemy. The enemy also lost far more troops than we did.

US Forces
Killed in action: 47,378
Wounded in action: 304,704
Total: 352,082

ARVN
Killed in action: 223,748
Wounded in action: 1,169,763
Total: 1,393,511

Australia
Killed in action: 469
Wounded in action: 2,940
Total: 3,409

Korea
Killed in action: 4,407
Wounded in action: 17,060
Total: 21,467

Thailand
Killed in action: 351
Wounded in action: 1,358
Total: 1,709

New Zealand
Killed in action: 83
Wounded in action: 212
Total: 295

Total
Killed in action: 276,436
Wounded in action: 1,496,037
Total: 1,772,473

*NVA/VC
Killed in action: 1,100,000
Wounded in action: 660,000
Total: 1,760,000

*Figures released by the Vietnamese government on April 3, 1995

(OOC: The number of U.S. deaths does not take into account deaths unrelated to combat, such as drowning, vehicle accidents, et. al.)

THe US deaths should take those deaths into account doe to fact that we still lost lives due to drwnings and vehincle accidents.

THe US deaths should take those deaths into account doe to fact that we still lost lives due to drwnings and vehincle accidents.

Maybe, but those deaths were in no way related to combat, hence, they were not counted on the list (same thing applied to the other forces).

As to this Vietnam crap, I suppose you could call it a military victory because we lost less men, but thats just ignorant, victory in war isn't measured by bodies (Though that is a contributing factor) its measured by objectives. In Vietnam, the US was unable to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam, our objective. Hence, we failed our objective, ergo, we lost.

As to this Vietnam crap, I suppose you could call it a military victory because we lost less men, but thats just ignorant, victory in war isn't measured by bodies (Though that is a contributing factor) its measured by objectives. In Vietnam, the US was unable to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam, our objective. Hence, we failed our objective, ergo, we lost.

The North Vietnamese were only able to take South Vietnam because we withdrew. As long as the US remained in Vietnam, the communists had no hope of winning.

We withdrew, because we were unable to force a conclusion. Any way you try to spin it, we lost. Its better to accept this and try to learn from it than to deny it ever happened.

We withdrew, because we were unable to force a conclusion. Any way you try to spin it, we lost. Its better to accept this and try to learn from it than to deny it ever happened.

You still seem to be confusing a political loss with a military loss. Furthermore, we did force a conclusion, we got a peace treaty. It was only after the idiots in Congress told the North that we wouldn't enforce it that they decided they could invade again.

Hummm...Good Point about the disparity in training I think you *might* be right that the initial round would go to the sleeper cells, suprise being one of their most effective weapons. I can imagine them seizing control of areas inside the US but holding them?....
That would be the point when the nation with the sleeper cells sends in the rest of the army to control and eventually crush hope within the population. All hail me, the new oppressor of the US :D

Don't bullshit me, by any definition Vietnam was a failure, not just in the cost of American (and indeed human) lives, but in the failure to achieve our objectives.

Don't bullshit me, by any definition Vietnam was a failure, not just in the cost of American (and indeed human) lives, but in the failure to achieve our objectives.

Oh it was most definately a failure, but the conclusions about our ability to be defeated that you can draw from that failure are not useful to this discussion.

I'm aware. But the discussion had run three pages before I jumped in, where were you then?

I'm aware. But the discussion had run three pages before I jumped in, where were you then?

I was unconcerned and felt no need to participate until I saw mischaracterizations of past actions taking place.

Mischaracterizations?

Mischaracterizations?

When Vietnam is couched in such narrow terms as "defeat" it ignores the true nature of what happened and why. Such a mischaracterization may lead people to draw incorrect conclusions about what Vietnam means when it comes to U.S. foreign policy actions. I'm not sure what post prompted me to respond originally, but if you want to know just read up and find it.

And to call it a victory is as ignorant as calling it a defeat is a "mischaracterization." I do realize the apparent complexities, maybe you'd like a different word better.

How bout loss? Failure? Quagmire? Clusterf*#@? SNAFU? Poorly executed endeavour maybe ... if you felt like masking the actuallity of the war.

And to call it a victory is as ignorant as calling it a defeat is a "mischaracterization." I do realize the apparent complexities, maybe you'd like a different word better.

How bout loss? Failure? Quagmire? Clusterf*#@? SNAFU? Poorly executed endeavour maybe ... if you felt like masking the actuallity of the war.

Or perhaps you could just describe it accurately, as I have done in my previous posts, as a military victory and a subsequent political defeat pursuant to a loss of will to enforce the previous agreement. By no means was the operation a victory, but in order to fully appreciate the situation we have to identify where defeat flowed from. In this case it was not the military.

That would be the point when the nation with the sleeper cells sends in the rest of the army to control and eventually crush hope within the population. All hail me, the new oppressor of the US :D

And when your Army lands how many are there going to be? 2 million?..5 Million? The NRA estimates that 45% of households in the US own at least one gun and the Brady Foundation estimates it at 39% thats a LOT of guns....
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/gunsandmothers/debate3.html

a 1997 study estimated there were 200,000,000 guns privately owned in the US ....http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00007/003247/title/Subject/topic/Torts/%20Personal%20Injury_Explosives/filename/tortspersonalinjury_2_6133

And a 2003 study estimated it between 238,000,000 and 276,000,000 guns
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/PressCoverage2003ybk/AsiaTimes.29.07.2003.pdf

But lets go with the mathmatically easy 200 million guns shall we?

Say you have 5 million solders here holding ground in the US there are at least 40 guns to shoot at every single one of your solders....most of them small caliber and of limited utility...but all it takes is one lucky shot from one of those 40 guns and your down one solder....

And when your army arrives...that's when the nuclear sub commanders learn who is behind the invasion....I hope the invading army likes the US cause there isnt going to be a home to go back to...Nor any more reinforcements from home...or supplies...or mail...or families...or pets....or vegitation....

I am of course assuming your navy somehow manages to destroy the US surface fleet...not very likely but possible....but the subs...they are a Lot harder to find...but they can find you....and if you dont get all the Aircraft carriers and missle cruise ships there is a chance they will nuke the concentrations of your forces inside the US....so basically Armagedon...Mutually Assured Destruction rears its ugly head again....of course same goes for the US if they tried that to do the same on one of the other nuclear armed countries.....So no....you cant Win a war against the US and expect to not have your counrty glow in the dark...We cant either...

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Pfft. I'm china. I'll just keep throwing troops at the US until we win, or the US becomes the New China

Pfft. I'm china. I'll just keep throwing troops at the US until we win, or the US becomes the New China

Then your in bigger trouble than I thought...cause you wont be able to take out the Surface Fleet your navy just isnt up to the task....and your country is going to be rapidly depopulated...say within a 4 hour period...1 billion to 10 million inside one day...( assuming our allies join in on the carnage ) if not still down to less than 50 million....and falling as radiation sickness starts setting in....

of course you will return the nuclear favor...but I am not certain just how accurate your missle systems are....nor what the failure rate on the warheads are.....either way we are toast too...

So the answer is still the same...you cant win and not get a close up veiw and personnal veiw of nuclear fission and fussion taking place.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

No offence intended Water Cove, but that is probably the most ignorant post I have ever seen on this board. AAhhzz’s response covers most of the obvious fallacies in your post, but I’m going to point out a few more.

1) The Neutron Bomb - This was designed for battlefield use on the European front against Soviet forces. NATO’s policy was that tactical battlefield nuclear weapons would likely be used in the event of a Soviet invasion because NATO’s conventional forces were believed to be too weak to stop it on their own. This policy, for good reason, made front line states like West Germany queasy because they didn’t want their country turned into a radioactive wasteland. The Neutron weapons would affect only a limited area and had almost no after effects. Civilians in shelters would not be affected, so it was believed that the civilian and economic cost would be limited. After the breakup of the Soviet Union these weapons were withdrawn from service.
2) Quickly destroying two major cites – Umm you do know that WW II lasted for over 6 years? That the US was at war for almost 4 before it dropped the bombs? That most analysts believe that a conventional invasion was required to force the Japanese surrender, which would cause hundreds of thousands of Allied causalities and the death of millions of Japanese? You might disagree with the Decision to use atomic weapons, but it is pure ignorance to call the decision quick.
3) German Terror Bombings – The US is only peripherally involved in these raids. The 8th US air force conducted daylight raids on military and industrial targets. Now the accuracy of the bombers did not live up to pre-war hype and a lot of their targets were in or adjacent to urban areas, so the bombing did cause a lot of civilian damage, but they were not the target. Unlike the RAF which conducted nighttime raids on population centers in order to break the will of the German people. The two most famous and devastating “Terror” raids, Dresden and Hamburg, were planned and mostly executed by the British RAF.
4) The Jingoistic moron – So if the US military launched an invasion of France because we were annoyed with Chirac and wanted him gone, that you don’t think the French would respond with Nucs? I suggest you do some research into French nuclear policy, particularly regarding a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. First of all the US wouldn’t need nucs we could stop any conceivable invasion, but it would not be in defense of the President, but in defense of our self determination.
5) No Civilian casualties – As AAhhzz pointed out, there have been many wars in the past in which civilians have been killed (particularly the 100 Years War). The reason that there were fewer civilians killed on the battlefields was that the battles took place were there were no civilians (what a concept!). Now if the enemies of the US would fight us in areas without civilians we would be very happy to engage them there. However they are not that stupid, no matter that the tactic is morally deplorable, they know there best chance for military and psychological advantage lies in camouflaging themselves against a civilian populations. They can not stand up to the US in the open, so they hide in the crowds. This constrains the US rules of engagement and causes innocents death no matter how hard the military tried to be “surgical” and “precise”. It is not the US that has brought the civilians into the battlefield it is our enemies.

To both of you's, my defense. And firstly, I know war isn't easy. But I harshly critisize every wasted life and don't like it that mankind keeps inventing new ways to kill eachother.

Neutron bombs are the little brother of the Nuclear bomb, and that alone puts them in a bad daylight. Both of them held (and still do) incredibly destructive power and especially during the Cold War there was no way to avoid them from hitting the wrong targets along with the right ones.
"Soviet tanks? allright, wipe them out. Occupied German village? Oh oops, it got in the way! Four hundreds innocent deaths you say? Oh, there was no way it could be avoided!"
The idea of using Neutron/Nuclear bombs to destroy specific targets sounds as sensible to me and shooting a fly with a rocket launcher. The results and risks are just too high. As for smart bombs, they obviously are not smart enough to dodge an Iraqi's home or else you wouldn't hear them complain about it. Or what about this: one Israelian helicopter missile takes out the limo of a notorious terrorist, but ten palistinian pedestrians died.Then it becomes clear the target survived while the bystanders did not. Simply don't use that kind of weaponry in crowds, or wait for a better opportunity. It might not come, and the target will not sit around idly, but if that was how Israel acted then people wouldn't be so anti-Israel. It's one thing or the other, and don't be surprised if both decisions have a down side.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki where avoidable. They got the nuclear bombs in the last stages of the war, and those cities where the last moments of the war. You could say they where 'quick' to use them because there would have been alternatives they did not explore. Mindlessly landing on Japanese soil like with Iwo Jima would be plain suicide indeed. Isolating Japan with the navy would have cut them off from the colonies they stole and the resources they needed to fuel their war effort. Their fleet was at a disadvantage after midway, and with the USSR entering the war Japan would have realized they where alone and with no chance of surviving. Just as how they realized the bombs would destroy them. But the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs where nothing short of how Hitler had Rotterdam bombed and demand the dutch surrendered, just because his forces where not going fast enough.

Bombing of Germany. The bombing of cities was unnecessary, the ground forces met almost no opposition after the offense in the Ardennes. If they had not screwed up Market Garden they either would have had a clear entry into Germany, or a functioning port in Belgium. Either way, they could have advanced months earlier and actually prevent the entire cold war by taking Berlin themselves. No one could say that the US soldiers where unwelcome visitors, not even the Germans. But the end of the war still managed to mark the Allies as vengeful. I won't deny however, that the English did a much worse job. I'm simply opposed to bombing civilian areas no matter which side does it, no matter what exuses they got.

Nukes, again. I know all about how France has its dark sides. But the people in France aren't stupid. They would never like the use of nuclear weapons. And I personally would rather see my country occupied rather than see it use nuclear bombs on the opposition to get some breathing room. Nukes aren't the answer, and everyone should know that if they do not yet. If you use them in retaliation, it's probably too late already. I'm not saying French leaders would be smart enough to refrain from launching nukes. I'm not saying American leaders would be smart enough to refrain from launching nukes. It's the ultimate example of being a sore loser. Defending your 'self-determination' with nuclear weapons would still be worse than being conquered, even by China. After all, who's going to make your life hell when Bejing and Shanghai are a glowing ruin and there are more Chinese soldiers occupying the country than there are US citizens?

Civilian casualties. Like I said earlier, if you use common sense to refrain from using the wrong weapons in populated areas it would help enormously. If you stay far away from civilians then terrorists have no choice but to seek you out. No matter how rational it might sound that terrorists hide in crowds and use public opinion against the enemy and that it's not the US's fault, that argument has failed for fourthy years now. Maybe not because people believe Palastinian and Iraqi spindoctors, but maybe because Israel and the US fall for that tactic so easily and yet don't learn from it. I still know who's the real coward here. But I also know who's being stupid. Only calling medical help for US soldiers and not for civilians is stupid. Unceremoniously storming a mosque to kill a sniper that is long gone is stupid. Shooting a wounded suspect insurgent is not stupid, it's murder. Abusing and humiliating prisoners is stupid and cruel. I don't believe a word of what Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Comical Ali say about the US. But if you keep making mistakes like that in an enviroment that already dislikes you, you are almost asking to be hated. The problem is not just the spineless terrorists who taunt soldiers into populated areas. It's the soldiers that despite their best intentions are fooled into complying also. The solution to this? Beats me, I thought the pentagon planned ahead of things like this. Apparently they're stupid to.

Naturally, I'm probably stupid as well because I'm so opposed to voilence that it makes me get into conflict with others. That way, everybody is stupid in his own special way and we can go to bed at night with the comforting thought that we are all one banana short of a tree and as a result so much alike. Happy now?

Just look at the plans that Clinton drew up in the late 1990s (and which, I would surmise, have not been changed) to deal with North Korea in the event of hostile action by North Korea.

Note that I said "hostile action" not "North Korea fires nukes".

The plan was (and I suppose, still is) to drop over fifty nuclear weapons on North Korea, to turn the place into a wasteland.

There seems to be an implicit admission that although we have a fairly unopposable conventional force (i.e., that no one could hope to win against), there's no interest in occupying Korea, not even during the Clinton administration.

So, my bet is that if another country or countries tried to actually attack the United States, and had the wherewithal to actually defeat the conventional forces, they would cease to exist.

So it's not possible.

One other thing that makes the whole prospect different: The US grows most of the world's food. Most of the major economies (i.e., Europe) are tied inextricably to the US economy. The whole world economy, at least among the G-7, is a house of cards. Attack the US, and you'll definitely send the rest of the world into a depression the likes of which has never been seen before.

So the U.S. is not only an 800-pound gorilla in the room, if you hit it, you'll feel the pain yourself. Makes things really difficult now, doesn't it?

To both of you's, my defense. And firstly, I know war isn't easy. But I harshly critisize every wasted life and don't like it that mankind keeps inventing new ways to kill each other.

Agreed, I wish that we could always work out our differences in non violent ways but what can you do if one side has no intention of doing so and feels it can obtain everything it wants by killing enough people? Give in immediately? Doesnt this reward the behaviour of killing?

As for smart bombs, they obviously are not smart enough to dodge an Iraqi's home or else you wouldn't hear them complain about it. Or what about this: one Israelian helicopter missile takes out the limo of a notorious terrorist, but ten palistinian pedestrians died.Then it becomes clear the target survived while the bystanders did not. Simply don't use that kind of weaponry in crowds, or wait for a better opportunity. It might not come, and the target will not sit around idly, but if that was how Israel acted then people wouldn't be so anti-Israel. It's one thing or the other, and don't be surprised if both decisions have a down side.

As you say War isnt easy...and if you know of any mechanical system that is totally flawless please point it out, smart bombs and cruise missles sometimes dont hit where they are supposed to...and after wards there usually isnt enough left to tell if the bomb or cruise missle took damage from anti aircraft fire....Sad but true...

As to the Israeli's comment if you have an enemy that is killing your children, hiding out as much as possible can you afford to pass by the opportunity to act? If Israeli's waited for the perfect opportunity before ever firing a shot your right the Israeli Palestinian conflict would be over...because the State of Israel would no longer exist....Do you see the Palestinians taking such care when they enter a pizza parlor wiht a vest full of explosives? Or walk up to a school bus stop and kill 10, 15, 20 children aged 5 to 11? Why such vitrol against the Israeli's without a comenserate comendation of the terrorist acts of the Palestienians? At least in your example the Israeli's were attempting to strike at a known terrorist/murderer/military target. What military value does a 5 year old girl have?



Hiroshima and Nagasaki where avoidable. They got the nuclear bombs in the last stages of the war, and those cities where the last moments of the war. You could say they where 'quick' to use them because there would have been alternatives they did not explore. Mindlessly landing on Japanese soil like with Iwo Jima would be plain suicide indeed. Isolating Japan with the navy would have cut them off from the colonies they stole and the resources they needed to fuel their war effort. Their fleet was at a disadvantage after midway, and with the USSR entering the war Japan would have realized they where alone and with no chance of surviving. Just as how they realized the bombs would destroy them. But the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs where nothing short of how Hitler had Rotterdam bombed and demand the dutch surrendered, just because his forces where not going fast enough.


Those cities were the last moments of the war presicely because they demonstrated the futility of prolonging the war. We could have bombed Tokoyo instead...and made the cost in human life 10 to 20 times greater. Your proposed course would have dragged on for years, after all if we never landed a single solder on the shore what reason would they have had for surrendering? True they could not have sustained their Offensive war effort....but a defensive effort is much easier to sustain isnt it....and what would we be doing to try to wear them down?...Continue to bomb their production facilities and causing massive civilian casualties? Either way the casualties keep adding up...With the use of the two atomic bombs Japan had to face the fact they were defeated much quicker ( 8 days from the dropping of the first bomb the Japanese surrendered ) than the siege of Japan your seeming to propose.....and Oh....Do you know if Japan was capable of sustaining itself on its own food supply? Or would we have starved them out?


Isolating Japan with the navy would have cut them off from the colonies they stole and the resources they needed to fuel their war effort. Their fleet was at a disadvantage after midway, and with the USSR entering the war Japan would have realized they where alone and with no chance of surviving. Just as how they realized the bombs would destroy them. But the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs where nothing short of how Hitler had Rotterdam bombed and demand the dutch surrendered, just because his forces where not going fast enough.

With the one difference, the bombs arguably saved lives, the speed of the Nazi advance was vital to Hitlers war plans. By getting the quick surrender of the Dutch Hitler was able to turn his forces to France quicker than anyone imagined possible...thus increasing German confidence and *maybe* emboldening them in their later atrocities

Bombing of Germany. The bombing of cities was unnecessary, the ground forces met almost no opposition after the offense in the Ardennes. If they had not screwed up Market Garden they either would have had a clear entry into Germany, or a functioning port in Belgium. Either way, they could have advanced months earlier and actually prevent the entire cold war by taking Berlin themselves. No one could say that the US soldiers where unwelcome visitors, not even the Germans. But the end of the war still managed to mark the Allies as vengeful. I won't deny however, that the English did a much worse job. I'm simply opposed to bombing civilian areas no matter which side does it, no matter what exuses they got.

In this I agree, civilian structures should always be avaioded as much as possible....at this time ( with the caveate of mechanical failure or error or random chance ) we can make extensive strikes on military targets while leaving surrounding civilian structures with minimal damage and we do so as much as possible....but nothing is perfect.

Nukes, again. I know all about how France has its dark sides. But the people in France aren't stupid. They would never like the use of nuclear weapons. And I personally would rather see my country occupied rather than see it use nuclear bombs on the opposition to get some breathing room. Nukes aren't the answer, and everyone should know that if they do not yet. If you use them in retaliation, it's probably too late already. I'm not saying French leaders would be smart enough to refrain from launching nukes. I'm not saying American leaders would be smart enough to refrain from launching nukes. It's the ultimate example of being a sore loser. Defending your 'self-determination' with nuclear weapons would still be worse than being conquered, even by China. After all, who's going to make your life hell when Bejing and Shanghai are a glowing ruin and there are more Chinese soldiers occupying the country than there are US citizens?

Good arguement for never using nuclear weapons...and truthfully I am with you on on this one.....* I * would not retaliate with nuclear weapons....the destruction is just too broad....The US is currently trying to develop nuclear bunker busters that penatrate deep into the earth before detonating in an effort to minimize the escape of radiation and maximize the damage to the target.....still to me too broad a range of devistation......but as they say...the genie is out of the bottle...and you cant put it back in...the best you can do is try to limit proliferation and work with the other nuclear powers and keep tensions from building to a level where war is an option between nuclear powers....

Civilian casualties. Like I said earlier, if you use common sense to refrain from using the wrong weapons in populated areas it would help enormously. If you stay far away from civilians then terrorists have no choice but to seek you out.

Why would terrorists seak out solders when they can have much more effect attacking the Civilian population in order to force local government to bow to their demands? To find the terrorists you have to go to where they are. Do you hear stories of the terroists hitting Marine Bases outside Bagdad?...No...because they have so much better pickings in crowded areas and Iraqi police stations and recruiter offices and convoys moving through the country away from supporting forces.

When was the last time you heard of a Palestinean attack on an Israeli military base...a check point yes....a base though?...and now compare that number to the number of times you have heard of an Israeli bus being blown up....or a bistro....or a night club.

No matter how rational it might sound that terrorists hide in crowds and use public opinion against the enemy and that it's not the US's fault, that argument has failed for fourthy years now.

Then where are the terrorists? They used to have training bases in Afganistan but they dont anymore....Where do terrorist strike? How do they hide? The only time you can know where a terrorist is is either make identification or pick up the remains after they have performed their mission

What arguement would you say we should use to change the dynamic? Poverty? Many of the terrorist in the planes of 9/11 were from Rich families. Bin Laden is / was rich so are many of his compatriats....so poverty isnt the answer


Maybe not because people believe Palastinian and Iraqi spindoctors, but maybe because Israel and the US fall for that tactic so easily and yet don't learn from it. I still know who's the real coward here.

I do.....no one,,,they are all brave in their own ways....they all believe in their cause and are willing to die for them.....in so many ways it is a waste of great human potential on both sides....



But I also know who's being stupid. Only calling medical help for US soldiers and not for civilians is stupid. Unceremoniously storming a mosque to kill a sniper that is long gone is stupid. Shooting a wounded suspect insurgent is not stupid, it's murder. Abusing and humiliating prisoners is stupid and cruel. I don't believe a word of what Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Comical Ali say about the US. But if you keep making mistakes like that in an enviroment that already dislikes you, you are almost asking to be hated. The problem is not just the spineless terrorists who taunt soldiers into populated areas. It's the soldiers that despite their best intentions are fooled into complying also. The solution to this? Beats me, I thought the pentagon planned ahead of things like this. Apparently they're stupid to.

As you said before....either choice has its downside....
Do you let the terrorists shoot at you without returning fire to avoid the possibility of civilian casualties?
Do you let the sniper know he can use the mosque anytime he wants because no one will ever come in after them?
Do you shoot the wounded suspected insurgent or do you let him have a chance to shoot you first? After all...the terrorists believe that they will achieve Paradise by killing the infidel and dying for the cause....in other words for them there is no downside.....kill or be killed you still are rewarded with eternal bliss.... Come to think of it they are not corwards because they believe no matter what happens they win on a personnel level....

Naturally, I'm probably stupid as well because I'm so opposed to voilence that it makes me get into conflict with others.

No, not stupid...you believe in your pricipals and are willing to argue for them. Thats an admirable quality. Perhaps you should take a look at other sides of the story as well....empathise with the humanitarian worker that is butchered like an animal mearly because she was a non Iraqi...even though she spent 30 years of her life in Iraq distributing humanitarian aid....or the terrorist that feels that they must impose a 12th century moral code on the world to save their culture and no price in human lives is too high to achieve this end....or the solder that agonizes over the chance that he might hit a child if he shoots or might die if he doesnt...

That way, everybody is stupid in his own special way and we can go to bed at night with the comforting thought that we are all one banana short of a tree and as a result so much alike. Happy now?

Your only One bannana short?....oh my...I had best go looking for some more of my bannanas

Be well

AAhhzz