The Student Room Group

Is it inevitable that Britain or the US will get attacked in the near future?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
how about you look at it in this way? If US and UK are not actively involved in foreign affairs like they are today, then some other country or a group of nations would take over the US and UK.

It cannot happen if you think about it, but my point is it is not the question of why -- it is more of who makes the first move - there is always the first mover advantage that you can stay on top of that.

If hypothetically, UK starts to be less concerned about international affairs and places more emphasis on domestic issues and resolving domestic challenges, someday this country would become perfect -- but more like a perfect recipe so that someone can take over. It is hard for anyone to agree with me on this one, but thats just the way it is.
Reply 21
Original post by U.S Lecce
The last time i checked my economist booklet, the US spent $500 billion on it's military every year! Yes you read that right, it says $500 billion! In second place france and the uk spent roughly $40bn!!!!!!!!

Who the **** is going to attack america?


Retard. Russia and China have technology to match US, but US hasnt got the manpower to match Russian 20mill + troops.
Original post by U.S Lecce
The last time i checked my economist booklet, the US spent $500 billion on it's military every year! Yes you read that right, it says $500 billion! In second place france and the uk spent roughly $40bn!!!!!!!!

Who the **** is going to attack america?


So spending means that you're more advanced does it?

It could quite simply be that other countries have used their money more wisely or have developed technology/nuclear methods of warfare more quickly and therefore not needed to spend as much money.

Also, a lot of America's money has been spent on technology based on satellites so if any attack was launched they'd be able to track it. However, Russia have developed technology to disable satellites rendering the technology America produced useless. Yes, its likely that America have a technological edge overall but technology alone does not win wars. Especially considering in terms of nuclear power Russia is stronger.
Original post by Swimmer
What America makes Russia takes makes it stronger and builds it cheaper.


Can I have an example?
Reply 24
that's why we got them nukes.

we got them a-bombs we got them h-bombs we even got a test tube containing the small pox virus (for scientific research) .
Original post by noobynoo
that's why we got them nukes.

we got them a-bombs we got them h-bombs we even got a test tube containing the small pox virus (for scientific research) .


I know you're probably a troll, but consider this: Who wins in global thermonuclear war?

Apart from the cockroaches, obviously
ITT: Idiots who have no idea about military strength, hardware and training.
Reply 27
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
How would we win?

Seriously, if we were attacked America wouldn't intervene.


They are bound under Article 5 of NATO.
Reply 28
Original post by Swimmer
Retard. Russia and China have technology to match US, but US hasnt got the manpower to match Russian 20mill + troops.


Number of troops don't count for **** in modern warfare.
Seriously, do you think that Russia or China, given the power they have and the likelihood that they could be allies would care about Nato?

They could easily launch the RS-24 and cause mass damage in the UK without a seconds thought and America certainly wouldn't act on that attack alone.
Reply 30
Original post by Cuddlemonster
Can I have an example?


Research Father Of All Bombs...
Reply 31
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
So spending means that you're more advanced does it?

It could quite simply be that other countries have used their money more wisely or have developed technology/nuclear methods of warfare more quickly and therefore not needed to spend as much money.

Also, a lot of America's money has been spent on technology based on satellites so if any attack was launched they'd be able to track it. However, Russia have developed technology to disable satellites rendering the technology America produced useless. Yes, its likely that America have a technological edge overall but technology alone does not win wars. Especially considering in terms of nuclear power Russia is stronger.


Are you kidding its not that they haven't needed to spend as much because they're more effiecient. Some of America's tech (the stuff we actually know about they might have even more impressive stuff classified infact its almost guaranteed) is soo futuristic. Thats what happens when the government pours money into it like theres no tommorrow.

Yes ttech isn't everything and America are particularly bad at using their 'toys', (think how many friendly fire incidents are from America), but they do get results.

I don't care how experienced and trained and skilled the soldier with the Russian hand-me-down weapons is, if he comes up against an inexperienced American soldier with his techy computer controlled shoulder fired missile launcher (those Javelin things), he can be in a tank and still be screwed.
Nobody wins a nuclear war. Nobody could defeat NATO in a conventional war.

/thread.
Reply 33
Also I dont think Russia or China are likely to attack us.... we havent done anything to hurt them have we?
Original post by Swimmer
Research Father Of All Bombs...


"Russia's state-run Channel One television said the new ordnance - dubbed the Father of all Bombs - is four times more powerful than the US's Mother of all Bombs."

I'm not denying that the bomb exists, but to you doesn't that ^ sound like "My dick is much bigger than yours" kind of logic?
Reply 35
Original post by insoms
Are you kidding its not that they haven't needed to spend as much because they're more effiecient. Some of America's tech (the stuff we actually know about they might have even more impressive stuff classified infact its almost guaranteed) is soo futuristic. Thats what happens when the government pours money into it like theres no tommorrow.

Yes ttech isn't everything and America are particularly bad at using their 'toys', (think how many friendly fire incidents are from America), but they do get results.

I don't care how experienced and trained and skilled the soldier with the Russian hand-me-down weapons is, if he comes up against an inexperienced American soldier with his techy computer controlled shoulder fired missile launcher (those Javelin things), he can be in a tank and still be screwed.


And youthink Russia or China dont have classified weapons too?
Reply 36
Original post by Cuddlemonster
"Russia's state-run Channel One television said the new ordnance - dubbed the Father of all Bombs - is four times more powerful than the US's Mother of all Bombs."

I'm not denying that the bomb exists, but to you doesn't that ^ sound like "My dick is much bigger than yours" kind of logic?


I dont get it.
Original post by insoms
Are you kidding its not that they haven't needed to spend as much because they're more effiecient. Some of America's tech (the stuff we actually know about they might have even more impressive stuff classified infact its almost guaranteed) is soo futuristic. Thats what happens when the government pours money into it like theres no tommorrow.

Yes ttech isn't everything and America are particularly bad at using their 'toys', (think how many friendly fire incidents are from America), but they do get results.

I don't care how experienced and trained and skilled the soldier with the Russian hand-me-down weapons is, if he comes up against an inexperienced American soldier with his techy computer controlled shoulder fired missile launcher (those Javelin things), he can be in a tank and still be screwed.


The government pouring money into something doesn't mean that new advances have been made either. Its quite plausible that the same level of technology has been reached by Russia as well. Now whilst I agree the likelihood Russia will attack the US is extremely low due to the threat, the likelihood they'd attack us isn't. Article 5 of NATO doesn't mean anything. If Russia did attack us then the thing most likely to happen is that they're kicked out of NATO and are no longer a member and that other countries would team up against them. However, the likelihood of an attack would still be low because if America attacked Russia and America lost men then China could take advantage of that fact so they'd think again before making the first move. Also, the countries around Russia would side with them due to the fact that without Russia they would have no oil supplies just as some countries found out when Russia cut the supplies off. Due to the fact that Russia has an extreme wealth of natural resources and an armed forces with a massive nuclear threat to back it up, the chances they'd get attacked even after attacking us are tiny.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Swimmer
I dont get it.


Never mind, then.
Reply 39
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
The government pouring money into something doesn't mean that new advances have been made either. Its quite plausible that the same level of technology has been reached by Russia as well. Now whilst I agree the likelihood Russia will attack the US is extremely low due to the threat, the likelihood they'd attack us isn't. Article 5 of NATO doesn't mean anything. If Russia did attack us then the thing most likely to happen is that they're kicked out of NATO and are no longer a member and that other countries would team up against them. However, the likelihood of an attack would still be low because if America attacked Russia and America lost men then China could take advantage of that fact so they'd think again before making the first move. Also, the countries around Russia would side with them due to the fact that without Russia they would have no oil supplies just as some countries found out when Russia cut the supplies off. Due to the fact that Russia has an extreme wealth of natural resources and an armed forces with a massive nuclear threat to back it up, the chances they'd get attacked even after attacking us are tiny.


Since when is Russia in NATO?

Quick Reply