Is it inevitable that Britain or the US will get attacked in the near future?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Swimmer
And youthink Russia or China dont have classified weapons too?
You don't spend that much money in a technologically and scientifically advanced Western country and end up with just the same old junk as everyone else. Its like saying one person spends £4,000 on a car and the other person £40, 000 and they end up with about the same performance comfort and reliability. It just wouldn't happen.
I always find it retarded how some people can oppose stepping in to save thousands of lives when a man made disaster like Libya occurs but when it's a natural disaster it's suddenly a tragedy and we should be helping. Human rights are more important than lines drawn on plots of land (country borders if you don't get it).
Original post by Swimmer
Retard. Russia and China have technology to match US, but US hasnt got the manpower to match Russian 20mill + troops.
Normally I'd get in to a conversation/debate with you. However considering you are throwing insults with no just reason then I'll just assume your some bratty kid that doesn't know what he is talking about.
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.
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.
Yes does make them more advanced. America tech is the mist advanced in the world, in some cases by a long shot! China has the man power and their tech is fairly impressive but china are still building their military and aren't quite near the level of the US. Russia on the hand are absolutely no where near the level of the US. Their air force is pretty decent, but their navy is falling apart. Their army is also not up to scratch. I'm not saying they don't have decent tech but it's not on the same level as the US. The UK beats the in terms of tech in their navy, although given their sheer size they'd still kick our ass. Trust me russia is not competing on the same level they did during the cold war.
And anyway the question was about if America would be attacked. And the answer is no, no one is stupid enough to attack America, just like no one is stupid enough to attack china or on a lesser extent Russia (if only for their nukes). Anyone that attacks any of these 3 countries are committing suicide and if they attack each other no one wins!
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by U.S Lecce
Yes does make them more advanced. America tech is the mist advanced in the world, in some cases by a long shot! China has the man power and their tech is fairly impressive but china are still building their military and aren't quite near the level of the US. Russia on the hand are absolutely no where near the level of the US. Their air force is pretty decent, but their navy is falling apart. Their army is also not up to scratch. I'm not saying they don't have decent tech but it's not on the same level as the US. The UK beats the in terms of tech in their navy, although given their sheer size they'd still kick our ass. Trust me russia is not competing on the same level they did during the cold war.
And anyway the question was about if America would be attacked. And the answer is no, no one is stupid enough to attack America, just like no one is stupid enough to attack china or on a lesser extent Russia (if only for their nukes). Anyone that attacks any of these 3 countries are committing suicide and if they attack each other no one wins!
And anyway the question was about if America would be attacked. And the answer is no, no one is stupid enough to attack America, just like no one is stupid enough to attack china or on a lesser extent Russia (if only for their nukes). Anyone that attacks any of these 3 countries are committing suicide and if they attack each other no one wins!
The question was that is it inevitable that Britain or the US would get attacked, not just America. What i'm saying is that Russia and China as allies are far stronger together than Britain and the US together. Russia or China could easily leave us dead in the water and then both attack the US together. Its quite simple to realise that both Russia and China together as allies are stronger than the US. This is war, dirty tactics to win wars have always been used so the likelihood of Russia and China teaming up to bring down a force like the US is high. If they got rid of America as a superpower then they'd both benefit massively from it as other countries would need to use China more for manufacturing related purposes in order to keep their own economies running whilst the US was in a severe state of recovery and Russia would benefit as countries would rely on them for natural resources.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by EdwardSAS
Bull. Although one could argue that the Libya intervention is, as you say 'meddling in another country's business', it is completed justified. Do you not believe that as a prosperous and free nation we have a moral responsibility to intervene when movements of popular consensus are being ruthlessly crushed? That argument completely justifies the Libya action.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
No, I really, really don't believe that at all. And if Germany had taken control of Europe and Russia they could have easily invaded us, striking when we did prevented them from doing so.
Libya poses no real threat to us, they have no nukes, and have been friendly with Britain in the past.
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
The question was that is it inevitable that Britain or the US would get attacked, not just America. What i'm saying is that Russia and China as allies are far stronger together than Britain and the US together. Russia or China could easily leave us dead in the water and then both attack the US together. Its quite simple to realise that both Russia and China together as allies are stronger than the US. This is war, dirty tactics to win wars have always been used so the likelihood of Russia and China teaming up to bring down a force like the US is high. If they got rid of America as a superpower then they'd both benefit massively from it as other countries would need to use China more for manufacturing related purposes in order to keep their own economies running whilst the US was in a severe state of recovery and Russia would benefit as countries would rely on them for natural resources.
This is a very valid point, however you have to take into account the uk and US is backed by the EU and NATO (assuming they all decide to join in). Plus India, who have a very strong military aren't too keen on the Chinese either. So if Russia and china decided to team up to take on the uk and us, they'd have to take into account that they may well meet a bigger opposition than they first thought.
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?
Who the **** is going to attack america?
I would think for over $500 billion (I looked this up myself) they would get more for their money. I mean seriously, $500 billion and they can't sucessfully manage to beat a few "rebel" terrorists in poor foreign countries. What do they piss all that money away on? Imagine if Nasa was given that much funding.
OP, you REALLY need a crash course in politics!!
UK and US (including other countries which would suport us, Aus, NZ, Canada, France, India, almost definatley Germany, and more) = victory
no country would be stupid to take on either of us because if they did they would have to take out EVERY SINGLE nuke we and america have, including the vast amount of overseas missiles we have positioned OR be destroyed themselves. it would be a suicide mission
its no longer about man power, its about the weapons and allies you have
20million soldiers against 5 american or UK nukes is nothing especially when you consider you have to move these 20million soldiers to the UK or US whereas the nuke can be activated and hit you in less than 30minutes
UK and US (including other countries which would suport us, Aus, NZ, Canada, France, India, almost definatley Germany, and more) = victory
no country would be stupid to take on either of us because if they did they would have to take out EVERY SINGLE nuke we and america have, including the vast amount of overseas missiles we have positioned OR be destroyed themselves. it would be a suicide mission
its no longer about man power, its about the weapons and allies you have
20million soldiers against 5 american or UK nukes is nothing especially when you consider you have to move these 20million soldiers to the UK or US whereas the nuke can be activated and hit you in less than 30minutes
(edited 13 years ago)
Delusional doesn't even begin to cut it.
Afhganistan has oil? Since when?
Iraq was weak, come again? Iraq had the third strongest armed force in the world before the First Gulf War...
Russia and China, really? Here are just a small selection of reasons why that's ludicrous:
* America and Europe can more than match them for manpower.
* Our armed forces are FAR more experienced, disciplined and better trained than their's.
* Russia and China have seriously outdated equipment, they don't have anywhere near the logistical or technical capability to mount an offensive against Europe and certainly not against America.
* Most of their soldiers are conscripts which would run back home as soon as any real fighting started.
* The two countries don't actually get on very well and are more likely to fight each other than us.
* China would collapse economically without the Western consumer market and Russia would collapse without the demand for it's gas from Europe.
* Why would they want to kill millions of people because we like to step in when despots start killing people?
* Just in case all that wasn't enough, if we looked likely to lose we would simply threaten mutually assured destruction with nukes - they would have no choice other than to back down.
Afhganistan has oil? Since when?
Iraq was weak, come again? Iraq had the third strongest armed force in the world before the First Gulf War...
Russia and China, really? Here are just a small selection of reasons why that's ludicrous:
* America and Europe can more than match them for manpower.
* Our armed forces are FAR more experienced, disciplined and better trained than their's.
* Russia and China have seriously outdated equipment, they don't have anywhere near the logistical or technical capability to mount an offensive against Europe and certainly not against America.
* Most of their soldiers are conscripts which would run back home as soon as any real fighting started.
* The two countries don't actually get on very well and are more likely to fight each other than us.
* China would collapse economically without the Western consumer market and Russia would collapse without the demand for it's gas from Europe.
* Why would they want to kill millions of people because we like to step in when despots start killing people?
* Just in case all that wasn't enough, if we looked likely to lose we would simply threaten mutually assured destruction with nukes - they would have no choice other than to back down.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
The question was that is it inevitable that Britain or the US would get attacked, not just America. What i'm saying is that Russia and China as allies are far stronger together than Britain and the US together. Russia or China could easily leave us dead in the water and then both attack the US together. Its quite simple to realise that both Russia and China together as allies are stronger than the US. This is war, dirty tactics to win wars have always been used so the likelihood of Russia and China teaming up to bring down a force like the US is high. If they got rid of America as a superpower then they'd both benefit massively from it as other countries would need to use China more for manufacturing related purposes in order to keep their own economies running whilst the US was in a severe state of recovery and Russia would benefit as countries would rely on them for natural resources.
Why would China and Russia be allies? Its not high. A war between those three powers would destroy the world economy and likely set the world back 50 yeas.
They would not benefit from it at all. The costs would be massive. America would go down swinging. Plus judging by a thread on here from awhile ago I'd like to see anyone invade the US when it has the largest navy by far in the world.
Original post by Josh93
Delusional doesn't even begin to cut it.
Afhganistan has oil? Since when?
Iraq was weak, come again? Iraq had the third strongest armed force in the world before the First Gulf War...
Russia and China, really? Here are just a small selection of reasons why that's ludicrous:
* America and Europe can more than match them for manpower.
* Our armed forces are FAR more experienced, disciplined and better trained than their's.
* Russia and China have seriously outdated equipment, they don't have anywhere near the logistical or technical capability to mount an offensive against Europe and certainly not against America.
* Most of their soldiers are conscripts which would run back home as soon as any real fighting started.
* The two countries don't actually get on very well and are more likely to fight each other than us.
* China would collapse economically without the Western consumer market and Russia would collapse without the demand for it's gas from Europe.
* Why would they want to kill millions of people because we like to step in when despots start killing people?
* Just in case all that wasn't enough, if we looked likely to lose we would simply threaten mutually assured destruction with nukes - they would have no choice other than to back down.
Afhganistan has oil? Since when?
Iraq was weak, come again? Iraq had the third strongest armed force in the world before the First Gulf War...
Russia and China, really? Here are just a small selection of reasons why that's ludicrous:
* America and Europe can more than match them for manpower.
* Our armed forces are FAR more experienced, disciplined and better trained than their's.
* Russia and China have seriously outdated equipment, they don't have anywhere near the logistical or technical capability to mount an offensive against Europe and certainly not against America.
* Most of their soldiers are conscripts which would run back home as soon as any real fighting started.
* The two countries don't actually get on very well and are more likely to fight each other than us.
* China would collapse economically without the Western consumer market and Russia would collapse without the demand for it's gas from Europe.
* Why would they want to kill millions of people because we like to step in when despots start killing people?
* Just in case all that wasn't enough, if we looked likely to lose we would simply threaten mutually assured destruction with nukes - they would have no choice other than to back down.
Firstly, put a Russian soldier against a British soldier and we see who wins. Secondly alot of European countries rely on Russia for oil...so demand will never fall.
Thirdly, run home? The way they run home in ww2?
Fourthly, could say the same for US.
Could say same againt the West.
This is a poor show of analysis. An attack by a soverign nation such as you've mentioned isn't what you need to worry about. Radical, fundamentalist Islamists, or perhaps in the future, fringe anarcho-primitivist groups getting hold of a nuclear bomb from a rogue nuclear state, such as Iran, is where the real threat lies.
Original post by f00ddude
OP, you REALLY need a crash course in politics!!
UK and US (including other countries which would suport us, Aus, NZ, Canada, France, India, almost definatley Germany, and more) = victory
no country would be stupid to take on either of us because if they did they would have to take out EVERY SINGLE nuke we and america have, including the vast amount of overseas missiles we have positioned OR be destroyed themselves. it would be a suicide mission
its no longer about man power, its about the weapons and allies you have
20million soldiers against 5 american or UK nukes is nothing especially when you consider you have to move these 20million soldiers to the UK or US whereas the nuke can be activated and hit you in less than 30minutes
UK and US (including other countries which would suport us, Aus, NZ, Canada, France, India, almost definatley Germany, and more) = victory
no country would be stupid to take on either of us because if they did they would have to take out EVERY SINGLE nuke we and america have, including the vast amount of overseas missiles we have positioned OR be destroyed themselves. it would be a suicide mission
its no longer about man power, its about the weapons and allies you have
20million soldiers against 5 american or UK nukes is nothing especially when you consider you have to move these 20million soldiers to the UK or US whereas the nuke can be activated and hit you in less than 30minutes
Russia and India are very close allies.
Russia has more nukes than US and Uk.
Original post by Orwell
This is a poor show of analysis. An attack by a soverign nation such as you've mentioned isn't what you need to worry about. Radical, fundamentalist Islamists, or perhaps in the future, fringe anarcho-primitivist groups getting hold of a nuclear bomb from a rogue nuclear state, such as Iran, is where the real threat lies.
Agree. I dont see why Russia or China would attack the West.
Germany and Russia forming an alliance?! Do you kids not do history in school anymore? There is a massive dislike of each other that is 150 years old. This would just never happen, I'm not even gonna take on the rest of your bull ****.
Original post by Libertinedreamer
Germany and Russia forming an alliance?! Do you kids not do history in school anymore? There is a massive dislike of each other that is 150 years old. This would just never happen, I'm not even gonna take on the rest of your bull ****.
Idiot. Nuff said.
Original post by Swimmer
Russia and India are very close allies.
Russia has more nukes than US and Uk.
Russia has more nukes than US and Uk.
russia used to, it is now a very broken country since the colapse of the soviet union, many are old unusable. the USA definatley has more now, a 500bn arms budget a year Vs russias 60bn, ive been studying the situation in international relations this semester
India would side with the UK, we give them BILLIONS in aid each year for this reason
and the point is they deffinatley can't take out all the American and UK missiles before we could strike back, we both have hundreds of nukes in various countries across europe and middle east the majority of the locations are a very closely guarded secret. the US can nuke almost any country in the would in less than 30minutes and the exceptions are countries such as aus and NZ, who are unlikely to every be a threat or to side against the UK
(edited 13 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is Israel winning
- I need ideas to reword my EPQ title.
- I can't get over him
- Galleries worth the visit in London for students
- My boyfriend shoved me while drunk, what should I do
- High paying job
- can i still do well in a levels?
- Getting into Medicine
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Antifa activist murdered in NYC
- Is the BMW series 1 a good first car?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Our tips for attending a Higher Education Fair.
- Cambridge Architecture Personal Statement and Portfolio
- ChatGpt
- My date showed up on a bicycle in central London
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- AI Life Advice
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- Is it just me or there are more and more people begging for money
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
