The Back Room

[archimage_a]

It's not a war without losses on both sides. And regardless, a loss of a life is a loss for the world... except when the loss is someone such as Stalin, Hitler or Osama, whose regime led to further losses.

 

Morally, yes.

Objectively, no.

 

If you go and kill everyone in an area, move your people in and take over their land....then you have won the war.

You might quibble over the idea that people were lost and culture was destroyed...but the fact is America was born and is now the most powerful country on the planet.

 

Revised: In unlimited warfare, disregarding nuclear weapons, America could defeat and single other country.

 

Probably.

[archimage_a]

Of course...that ignores biological attacks that would devestate America and Humanity.

Which would innevitably happen if America declared war on a serious power.

 

 

 

Though they said the same thing about strategic bombing and gas in the second world war so IDK.

[The_Mather1]

Oh, and Rocco, did you know the US has the world's lowest trade account balance while Norway has the fifth highest?

[Retech]

Okay, Rocco is correct. The only reason that we don't win wars is because we care about civilians. If we just killed them, we would win tactically (though every other country hating us for that would be a bad side effect).

[The_Mather1]

Retech, China could probably take you on full-scale the same way Vietnam did small-scale.

[Vixion]

/pukes rainbow/

 

c:

[Icuownage]

Errr no

 

It's cause war is expensive as hell, and the fact that certain benefits from the war are just not that beneficial when compared to the costs.

 

Citzens do help when it comes to stopping the war, but they are not the only thing.

[archimage_a]

Yeah...there is the question as to why America would go to war.

Its not like they are running out of space...

[Vixion]

And that is why we should just blow whoever is a threat off of the face of the Earth!

 

TA-DA! Problem Solved....and....there goes half of the world c:

[Retech]

Errr no

 

It's cause war is expensive as hell, and the fact that certain benefits from the war are just not that beneficial when compared to the costs.

 

Citzens do help when it comes to stopping the war, but they are not the only thing.

 

It's expensive because we have to use sophisticated technology to figure out who to kill and who not to kill. If we're just killing everyone, it's cheap and easy. Same thing with China. Use naval supremacy and kill everyone in their large cities, and watch as their power disentigrates.

[The_Mather1]

Retech, you couldn't win a war against China because they have the people to use the strategy Vietnam used; zerg rush.

[archimage_a]

Use naval supremacy and kill everyone in their large cities, and watch as their power disentigrates.

 

Wouldn't it be as easy to do in America...

 

 

Five/Ten nuclear weapons and America is screwed.

[jasignhagj]

Retech, you couldn't win a war against China because they have the people to use the strategy Vietnam used; zerg rush.

 

Place navy on the coast

Cruise missiles at every major city

???

Profit (Well, not really)

[Icuownage]

It also costs a lot to pay the entire army (which I don't think has ever been deployed, perhaps excluding ww1&2). The fact you already pay A LOT, and I mean a really huge amount into military already then you are going to have to use your entire gdp.

 

ALSO, I'm not sure if America even has enough supply of other resources to deploy everyone, so many soliders may go out under equipped.

 

 

Also the outcome of the war VERY much depends on who is the defender and who is the offender.

 

In a defensive war against China, America will probably win due to the fact China has a horrible navy, but in an offensive war? America wouldn't last too long.

[Retech]

Use naval supremacy and kill everyone in their large cities, and watch as their power disentigrates.

 

Wouldn't it be as easy to do in America...

 

 

Five/Ten nuclear weapons and America is screwed.

 

We are speaking hypothetically, without nuclear weapons, because that just leads to EVERYONE dying. There's no real discussion with nuclear weapons.

 

We have supreme air force and navy (not army, because the Chinese just have so many freakin soldiers), so the enemy would not be able to target us that way.

 

---

 

And I agree with Rocco for challenges, except maybe the French. (Because they're the French)

[The_Mather1]

You seem to forget that China is second only to you in GDP, they can afford weapons as well, and they have the manpower to outnumber you quickly when it comes to ships.

[archimage_a]

We are speaking hypothetically, without nuclear weapons, because that just leads to EVERYONE dying. There's no real discussion with nuclear weapons.

 

We have supreme air force and navy (not army, because the Chinese just have so many freakin soldiers), so the enemy would not be able to target us that way.

 

Nuke the ships.

 

 

I fail to see why you are arguing about who could win in a fight when, in an actual fight, they would just nuke your shiny army.

 

 

 

But even without nukes. Suitcase bomb to Canada, then America.

 

If you are gonna sit on the coast and wavy cheerily at the Chinese they are gonna do something other than sit their waiting to die.

[jasignhagj]

Manpower is irrelevant when it comes to a navy. Just make sure to hit their shipyards fast.

[Retech]

While stupid economically, the fact that congressmen compete to have new weapon systems built in their states means that we have a ridiculously large and overpowered Industrial-Military complex.

[The_Mather1]

You seem to forget how much manpower they have, they could practically make a ship for every bomb you could make.

[Icuownage]

Ehh China will never reach America in terms of Navy, their navy is just too underdeveloped currently, and it would take too long to build the ships, also the shipyards could just be bombed, which means China just wasted a ton of money.

 

 

But is simply too large of a target for America to use the devastate everything tactic. And once America has used up all their missiles bombers and all that crap, their infantry get slaughtered by the sheer mass of the Chinese army

 

America could then probably blockade China, causing them to.... I mean the rest of the world to starve as most Chinese products would not make it out of their nation. China's GDP would plummet, but consumerism AROUND THE WORLD, would get harmed.

 

America would have to ask for peace due to growing dissent within their own country, and also around the world. Infact other countries would begin to be called in due to America pretty much cutting off the worlds biggest producer of materalistic things.

[archimage_a]

Just one of those random things to point out...I know you are all engaged in your 'My dad could beat up your dad' thing...But wouldn't an American-Chinese war destroy the world Economy?

 

I mean, unless China declared war on Europe, Europe brought weapons from America, and America eventually joined the war...America's normal paradigm is going to fail.

[Retech]

Ehh China will never reach America in terms of Navy, their navy is just too underdeveloped currently, and it would take too long to build the ships, also the shipyards could just be bombed, which means China just wasted a ton of money.

 

 

But is simply too large of a target for America to use the devastate everything tactic. And once America has used up all their missiles bombers and all that crap, their infantry get slaughtered by the sheer mass of the Chinese army

 

America could then probably blockade China, causing them to.... I mean the rest of the world to starve as most Chinese products would not make it out of their nation. China's GDP would plummet, but consumerism AROUND THE WORLD, would get harmed.

 

America would have to ask for peace due to growing dissent within their own country, and also around the world. Infact other countries would begin to be called in due to America pretty much cutting off the worlds biggest producer of materalistic things.

 

1. China's power currently rests in their enormous urban areas, not their countryside like in the past. Smashing their cities would devastate the CCP hold over China, and it would basically disentigrate.

 

2. India has a lot of industrial capacity. The demise of China would only allow other nations (including corporations in the United States, that has 1.6 trillion dollars in savings atm) to rise to the occasion and make their own gobs of cash.

 

3. Americans are so war-like that we only call for peace when we're losing. YEAH, SMACK SOME COMMUNIST BUTT.

 

----

 

And yes, Archi. Probably.

[The_Mather1]

Another thing, one man with an AK-47 could probably never take out a bomber in time, but if you have twenty men firing, you could probably shoot down a bomber before it hit its target.

[archimage_a]

1. China's power currently rests in their enormous urban areas, not their countryside like in the past. Smashing their cities would devastate the CCP hold over China, and it would basically disentigrate.

 

Replace China with Russia, and CCP with Stalin's...And you have:

 

'All we have to do is kick down the door and the whole rotten shack will come crashing down'

~Adolf Hitler