 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - If the World Went to War Who Would Win? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
See poll title.| Current Music: Buddy Richard & Maynard Ferguson- Caravan | Russia |
9.1%, 1 vote | China |
9.1%, 1 vote | European Union and Allies (Including Britain and Canada) |
18.2%, 2 votes | United States of America |
63.6%, 7 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
BookReader Ninji Level: 25  Posts: 201/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| If the current powers went to war who would win? (Assume that this is a free-for-all.) | |||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 3006/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| No one. Convential warfare between any modern super nation (China, India, Russia, America, most of Europe, etc.) is impossible. The war would quickly turn to nuclear weapons and bio-chem warfare. | |||
|
BookReader Ninji Level: 25 Posts: 203/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| Such a large scale war is bound to happen again. Let's hope we wouldn't be so stupid. | |||
geeogree Bloober Level: 34  Posts: 311/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
well, I hate to poke a hole in your poll.... but you called it a free for all... and then listed several countries together...  shouldn't you have listed like 30 countries with armies well enough equipped to actually wage a significant war in another country? oh well.... I pick russia  |
|||
Ramadan Roy Like Like ...Or you'll be wearing your ass for a hat. Renowned Otaku Level: 44 Posts: 540/816 EXP: 569705 For next: 41580 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 13 hours Last activity: 7 hours |
| ||
| None of the countries in the world have nothing to gain by participating in such a world war. The aftershocks would ruin the rest world even further. We should learn to stop fighting amongst ourselves and do battle against disease and other such evils. | |||
Dracoon Zelda The temp ban/forum ban bypasser! Level: 84  Posts: 2515/3727 EXP: 5514391 For next: 147561 Since: 03-25-04 From: At home Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| Hypothetical people? America... We are the only major super power in our hemisphere and can't really be attacked from our borders. What is Canada going to attack us. *laughs and then gets banned*  |
|||
Gavin Fuzzy Rhinoceruses don't play games. They fucking charge your ass. Level: 43  Posts: 497/799 EXP: 551711 For next: 13335 Since: 03-15-04 From: IL, USA Since last post: 13 hours Last activity: 13 hours |
| ||
| the United States of America. just beacuse i said so. although no thanks to our shitty failed missle defence system  (edited by Gavin on 02-16-05 01:52 AM) |
|||
Kitten Yiffer Purple wand Furry moderator Vivent l'exp����¯�¿�½������©rience de signalisation d'amusement, ou bien ! Level: 135 Posts: 7934/11162 EXP: 28824106 For next: 510899 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 4 min. |
| ||
The countries who aren't particpating.  ...and yes, Sweden would surely be one of thoose countries. |
|||
Ran-chan Moldorm eek, when are they going to stop growing... Level: 143  Posts: 7619/12781 EXP: 35293588 For next: 538220 Since: 03-15-04 From: Nerima District, Tokyo - Japan Since last post: 12 hours Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| Pfft. Who do you think? The swedish goverment would be to unsure if they should participate or not/attack or not. USA would win, as the war mongers they are. (edited by Trapster on 02-16-05 11:05 AM) |
|||
|
BookReader Ninji Level: 25 Posts: 204/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Dracoon Every bloody time I post a poll or one of the "ethic" questions somebody says, "Well that couldn't happen because..." Then somebody with a brain comes along and says, "Hey maybe it is a HYPOTHETICAL question." Thank you Dracoon. As for the rest of you (and no I don't mean those that know it's hypothetcal): AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRHGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH! I am so frustrated with you! |
|||
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 2232/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Assuming FFA, then the US--otherwise anyone who allied themselves with the U.S. woudl suffer heavily but the U.S. will still end up on top. Not unless the reason war as started was because of the U.S. aggression that was unpopular; then I would go with the other countries against the U.S. | |||
|
Sandy53215 Acmlm (10:55:31 PM): they're having fun for the first time in so long Level: 47  Posts: 328/948 EXP: 713034 For next: 53169 Since: 03-15-04 From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin (U.S.A) Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by The Dogan Dont think that will happend anytime soon, honestly it would make the most sense to do this but several countries dont give a shit about anything. This world needs to grow up and mature and agree to "like" everyone in a sense that means everyone is allies. Thats all I have to say for now. |
|||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 1414/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Trapster Damn skippy!  |
|||
|
Ran-chan Moldorm eek, when are they going to stop growing... Level: 143 Posts: 7624/12781 EXP: 35293588 For next: 538220 Since: 03-15-04 From: Nerima District, Tokyo - Japan Since last post: 12 hours Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| Well, actually it isn | |||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 3018/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| And my thesis is that you posed a question without accurate parametres. There would be no winners as everyone would begin firing nuclear armed ICBMs at each other. Convential warfare between relative powerhouses is impossible. ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! If it were come down to the nuts and bolts of convential warfare, and a free-for-all were to occur...I'd honestly have to say that a nation like Australia would be the best survivor. It has a fairly sizeable military, and due to the fact that it is nestled in a hornet's nest of Muslim nations, it would be quite the defenisble peace of ass. Much like in Risk. Europe and Russia would fall. Very quickly. And China/America would be locked in a stand-still. America striking from Japan, China striking Japan. Gradually, assuming my prior assessment of Russo-European warfare success is wrong, an alliance system would emerge and try to isolate whomever caused the war and strike them down. Edit:: Canada would more likely side with its continental neighbour than someone an ocean away. We may have the same Queen, but we have no policy ties anymore. (edited by Ziffski on 02-16-05 04:15 PM) |
|||
|
BookReader Ninji Level: 25 Posts: 205/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| There are too many factors to even atempt to try list them all. You don't have to assume that we wouldn't use ICBMs, though I'd say that for any side to have a clear victory there would have to be troops used somewhere. |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 3023/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Clear victory would be who would survive the Winter the longest. There is no way that ICBMs couldn't be used. Tactical nuclear strikes have become a necessity in super-wars. |
|||
|
BookReader Ninji Level: 25 Posts: 208/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| I seem to remember reading a book about Russian tactics that mentioned tactical nukes. Scary stuff, they recommended using them to support advancing troop columns. Those crazy Russians: "We just nuked the area in front of you. Now ignore the possiblity of extreme radiation and mop up." I'll agree that with nukes everyone loses. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 1418/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| I think I read somewhere that if you had 16 H-bombs properly placed correctly in key geologic locations, you could for all intents and purposes "blow up" the Earth. Now I imagine the meaning of this is that it would distort the outer regions beyond recognition. I would do that and detonate it from space. Then I win! | |||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 3027/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by BookReader "Tactical nuclear weapons are to be used in the basic assault of city-scapes, bridges and important ports of the enemy. To maximize casualties is the point of war." One of Kissinger's ideas. The US doesn't support the nuclear creep. It supports the nuclear bombardment. The tactical movement of the US troops in the event of a full scale strike against a US target of interest by an extra-national government is to launch a full scale assault. If they the target is jeapordized without the ability to reclaim it, then nuclear weapons are permitted. In fact the US has a jeep mounted "tactical nuclear bazooka" that has a .25 kiloton yield (still alot of damage) up to 1 kiloton (eeeek). Britain and most of NATO supported these ideas. The Warsaw pact had its nuclear barrage which used heavy yield convential weapons/low yield nuclear weapons to minimize damage to front line troops. China, India and Pakistan have a tottenkampf sort of idea when it comes to nuclear warfare, which frightens me. MathOnNapkins: Only when every condition is right could it be that minimal. And the strike locations are fairly remote and difficult to get to. Like the bottom of the atlantic, etc. It would take approx. the detonation of 400 megatons in order to destroy the Earth twice (the destruction of the Earth is relative to population and fallout). The destruction of the Earth three times means the death of something like 80% of the population. To "blow up the Earth" is to kill all human and animal and plant life, leaving only bacteria. Although a starburst is just as damaging as bombing a city |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - If the World Went to War Who Would Win? |
| | |
