I don't think there is any one nation's army in the world that could go toe-to-toe with the US military in a straight-up fight.
Russia maybe? I'm no expert on how well equipped the Russian military is though, compared to the USA.
Given that Russian scientists are ingenius bastards, I'd say they'd be more competent then most, but the money just isn't there.
Not Russia--contrary to what a lot of Americans would like to believe, Russia's current armed forces have their hands full re-organizing themselves for the future and engaging in joint exercises with the other CIS countries. Versus something cool, like dropping paratroopers in Colorado.
Which is not to say they don't have a lot of experience, or money. Just not nearly as much as us (we really like going to war--we do it so frequently--and we are quite willing to spend the big bucks to do it). They can curb-stomp their nearby rivals, but that's a far step from parity (even if those rivals are supposed to be trained by the US). They got some cool stuff though, like any major major arsenal (they are, after all, the second biggest).
As mentioned, China is a military power, certainly, but they're farther from parity than Russia is with the US, at this present moment.
Which is not to say we'd just crush them in any sort of non-nuclear scenario, no problem. The last two western invasions of the CIS countries (of which the US participated in one) ended very poorly for the defenders, but even worse for the aggressors. Still more likely than the CIS countries attacking North America however--in other words, both scenarios are pretty unlikely. Ultimately, our amazing ability to project our force all over the world aside, I'm pretty sure we'd accomplish the same thing as putting almost all our armed forces on a small island and bombarding it until nothing was living anymore. Similarly, given our recent track record with greatly disunited countries of about thirty million people (not that anyone could do better or anything), I'm not too optimistic about how well we'd do with a fiercely patriotic population of more than a billion. Good thing that's not going to happen.
The american military can buy this for a price, as they bought their H&K assault rifles KMW main battle tank gun previously (the outdated model btw, the new one is not fitting into Abrahams turrets - the turrets are to small unfortunately), indeed many countries buy submarines, fighter bombers, guns, missiles and tanks from us. I hear the Meteor will replace the popular Sidewinder air-to-air missile in the not-so-far future.
Of course this is only quality of equipment. We could never compete with a military as big as the US army and we have no intention to (expensive, expensive). We also refrain from fielding any form of nuclear weapon.
We take a technology, analyze it, improve on it and then... instead of doing the cardinal error keeping the knowledge secret and fielding the stuff exclusively we sell the technology and with that money we develop the next generation of weapons.
The USA being a major customer in our military technology is an as good as possible reputation i guess.
The main advantage of the USA is the big bucks to do things they want to, the advantage of the Russians is their creativity, often coming up with totally unheard concepts and the great strenght of China is manpower. Our trait is simply building better weapons than anybody else, and these days we sell them to anybody who can afford it wich is usually the USA.
ACSIS on
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
The american military can buy this for a price, as they bought their H&K assault rifles KMW main battle tank gun previously (the outdated model btw, the new one is not fitting into Abrahams turrets - the turrets are to small unfortunately), indeed many countries buy submarines, fighter bombers, guns, missiles and tanks from us. I hear the Meteor will replace the popular Sidewinder air-to-air missile in the not-so-far future.
Of course this is only quality of equipment. We could never compete with a military as big as the US army and we have no intention to (expensive, expensive). We also refrain from fielding any form of nuclear weapon.
We take a technology, analyze it, improve on it and then... instead of doing the cardinal error keeping the knowledge secret and fielding the stuff exclusively we sell the technology and with that money we develop the next generation of weapons.
The USA being a major customer in our military technology is an as good as possible reputation i guess.
The main advantage of the USA is the big bucks to do things they want to, the advantage of the Russians is their creativity, often coming up with totally unheard concepts and the great strenght of China is manpower. Our trait is simply building better weapons than anybody else, and these days we sell them to anybody who can afford it wich is usually the USA.
I probably should have been clear that I did not mean 'Germany' in the sense of 'Russia's nearby rivals'. It's...not that close, and it's not really a military rival over the major issues Russia has been willing to go to war over. For example, the frozen conflict zones and their national autonomy. Romania, Moldavia, Georgia--different story.
Which is not to say Germany is not a force to be reckoned with, especially in relation to its own neighbors. I may be analyzing things from too much of a historical standpoint--the Allied intervention during the Russian Civil War also had the best military equipment in the world (by far--the gap was way larger than it was now), so technology is only one concern (of course, at the same time, the nature of the technology involved was different).
I am not enough of an expert to say who builds the best equipment, so I'll have to take your word for it, and I'd agree in the sense that America does have a serious advantage in that it spends very nearly 50% of the world's military expenditures by itself (allowing it to buy pretty much anything it wants to, political repercussions aside, in almost any quantities). At the same time, the Russians are no slouch (in 2009, the Uralvagonzavod tank factory produced more of their most modern tank than all of the other countries of the world combined, if memory serves), and are paying attention to quality as well as quantity, contrary to the popular stereotype (of course, reality has constraints, so you can't have all of both, necessarily--especially if you are Russia).
Again, Russia, and China, is a long way for parity with the US. Russia is closer, but I personally think China will overtake them and, in time, the US.
- It's not really a risk. It's nothing that Iran can't rebuild or replace now that they have the knowhow and support of Russia and China, and it would gain it huge PR advantages. "Royally fucked" would indicate that Iran would lose something permanently, or something decisive would happen.
The same could be said about any potential US losses during the bombing campaigns. Replacing pilots and equipment is faster than hiring new, competent scientists and rebuilding reactor sites.
To be clear, I think attacking Iran would be a terrible, terrible idea. But I just thought that needed to be said.
And Iran wouldn't really be able to stand against a US attack. Yes the Iranian army is not the Iraqi army, but it still has rusted and outdated equipment, and in far less numbers, and their logistics capacity is nothing close to the US. Note that I'm talking about the regular army, not an insurgency or the Quds.
Again, Russia, and China, is a long way for parity with the US. Russia is closer, but I personally think China will overtake them and, in time, the US.
China will never come anywhere close to overtaking the US. At some point they might get some jets that could rival the F-22, but they would never be able to field them in large numbers. By the time they're anywhere close to the spending we are at now, we'll already be years ahead in tech, training, and experience. Plus we got the advantage of having this motherfucker right here.
At the same time, the Russians are no slouch (in 2009, the Uralvagonzavod tank factory produced more of their most modern tank than all of the other countries of the world combined, if memory serves), and are paying attention to quality as well as quantity, contrary to the popular stereotype (of course, reality has constraints, so you can't have all of both, necessarily--especially if you are Russia).
Again, Russia, and China, is a long way for parity with the US. Russia is closer, but I personally think China will overtake them and, in time, the US.
Well, the T90 can't drive underwater (important when crossing rivers) but it has serious firepower, range and armor. Its a little slow but also comes with standart anti-missile systems. Russian equipment was always cost efficient. Maybe a little less sophisticated but production numbers always made up for this. Germans always build the best possible weapons with no compromises to costs wich is not that efficient. Plus everything we learned about tank design we learned from the Russians during WWII, especially when it comes to things like tank armor.
In the case of China its even less quality of equipment and more strenght in economy and numbers. You could say Russia is doing a balanced approach to military equipment whilst China and Germany represent the respective opposite ends of the spectrum.
I think all three approaches work and its really only a matter of avaiable manpower. China can afford to loose people and therefore they have less need protecting their soldiers. Germany on the other hand was always weak in numbers and therefore the tendancy to send soldiers into war with the best aviable protection is understandable.
If a german artellery has to compede with ten chinese artellery systems in a hypotetical scenario it HAS to be an highly mobile auto-loading rapid fire artellery system wich can cross rivers without a bridge. As simple as that.
I know this is broader range than this topic is for but....
We're due for WW3. I'm a proud 30 year old navy vet. Did 6 years. I feel like I'm going to have to rejoin before my age expirement hits due to this. Everybody has nukes, the middle east is what its been for the past 1000 years, and eventually china is going to do something/somebody is going to do something to china. I don't see how we end up on the same side as them.
The Irans, N. Korea's, IRAQ/Afghanistan (If we don't set up puppet gov) will be big players in starting the conflict.
I know this is broader range than this topic is for but....
We're due for WW3. I'm a proud 30 year old navy vet. Did 6 years. I feel like I'm going to have to rejoin before my age expirement hits due to this. Everybody has nukes, the middle east is what its been for the past 1000 years, and eventually china is going to do something/somebody is going to do something to china. I don't see how we end up on the same side as them.
The Irans, N. Korea's, IRAQ/Afghanistan (If we don't set up puppet gov) will be big players in starting the conflict.
Look on the plus side: it'll be resolved decisively before you even get to the recruitment office.
...and eventually china is going to do something/somebody is going to do something to china
hahahaoohohohoh
MGS2D is right, remember there will never be a nuclear war because of all the real estate involved. Also, China's 'belligerence' extends to two things: Places that were historically parts of China, and those assholes in Japan.
Well, the T90 can't drive underwater (important when crossing rivers) but it has serious firepower, range and armor.
Really? I assumed it had the T-80's snorkel capability (the T-80 can ford rivers, this much I know). Well, it's a specialized concern--kind of how like how the BMP-3 is completely, and immediately, amphibious (it can even fire while in the water, apparently), while most other IFVs (like the Marder) are not, or at best, need special kits to become amphibious. It could make a huge difference in a campaign--or, conversely, it could make no difference.
One thing the Russians have, I suppose, is fuel efficiency on their side--at least in the area of tanks. But again, that's one advantage, in a long list of advantages and disadvantages. Fuel efficiency becomes a matter of simple mathematics--one tank weighs two-thirds of what the other does, and is going to consume less fuel--but the heavier tank has advantages in other areas in turn (obviously armor protection).
Different sides have different fuel reserves they can call upon.
Again, it's difficult to say overall, because there are so many concerns when it comes to reaching parity. Then there's the whole issue of training, experience, and tactics, which is an entirely other huge issue.
Global symmetrical warfare is all but dead thanks to global markets and debt reliance.
We'll see conflict on some scale in the next 50 years in the middle east, but it will not be World War 3 in any sense.
And we're already on China's side, they have America by the balls economically.
Yes but a big war changes that all. Don't forget the previous WW's were a lot of small things going on, one superpower escelating, and people choosing sides. Japan's attack in WW2, Germany was kicking ass, Japan needs resources, and at the time we were good allies. But then shit happens ( I know simplistic, not all the reasons etc... but shows during war nothing is sacred)
And like you say, it's probably further off from the time table I listed. I would like to think most people know that now adays, if theres a World War, we are all totally fucked. But with so much conflict in the world right now and nuclear weapons, a small nation could rise to power relatively quickly with a FTW attitude. And we'd let them gain ground just like germany. Why go to nuclear war? Once someone releases nukes we're all fucked.
But, then, that small country becomes WW2 germany, alliances start to be made. Us and brittain should be a guarantee. And why not say China is part of the Evil Axis, try to take them out, and become #1 again in so many financial ways.
Then again, we went into Iraq and as far as I know, don't have controll of the oil in that region. Maybe we do via 3rd parties/puppets/etc.... But if we were in a position to take china out of the picture, wouldn't we be much like Japan in WW2?
I hope I'm not way off topic here, just some things that I've been thinking about for a long while, and happened to see this thread while unable to sleep. I'm also an expect the worse guy
...and eventually china is going to do something/somebody is going to do something to china
hahahaoohohohoh
MGS2D is right, remember there will never be a nuclear war because of all the real estate involved. Also, China's 'belligerence' extends to two things: Places that were historically parts of China, and those assholes in Japan.
I hope you're right. And part of my even thinking about all this before I saw this thread, was bomb shelters are again being marketed out there. And when they told me this I thought "You know, I don't think I'd want a bomb shelter. I'd probably rather just die then have to come up in a nuclear fallout world. Unless we're just gonna hang out for 5 years and make babies" lol.
Shit really is scary.
Tommatt on
0
Options
JakarrdIn the belly ofOklahomaRegistered Userregular
Dirty bombs are not nuclear bombs. Threatening still, but we're not talking mass destruction.
From what little I've read getting initally enriched to 20% or so is the slowest part but after that they can ramp it up to 90% in short order assuming they have the means to it. There is debate on the tech Iran has for this since its not uncommon for some nations to sell the means. I think Russia is at least one country that would sell but I have no [citation] for that.
There was an article I read somewhere that was dated 2008 that mentioned like Iran had like over 600k of nuclear material in stock that they could make one nuclear weapon assuming they could enrich as necessary.
Jakarrd on
Greetings Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.
Global symmetrical warfare is all but dead thanks to global markets and debt reliance.
We'll see conflict on some scale in the next 50 years in the middle east, but it will not be World War 3 in any sense.
And we're already on China's side, they have America by the balls economically.
Yes but a big war changes that all. Don't forget the previous WW's were a lot of small things going on, one superpower escelating, and people choosing sides. Japan's attack in WW2, Germany was kicking ass, Japan needs resources, and at the time we were good allies. But then shit happens ( I know simplistic, not all the reasons etc... but shows during war nothing is sacred)
Potentially, it's hard to say. This is definitely possible on the smaller scale, with a local conflict pulling in regional forces, but we won't be seeing it on a global scale like WWI or II because of the inter-dependence of first world nations and because we've seen where such dog-piling leads.
And like you say, it's probably further off from the time table I listed. I would like to think most people know that now adays, if theres a World War, we are all totally fucked. But with so much conflict in the world right now and nuclear weapons, a small nation could rise to power relatively quickly with a FTW attitude. And we'd let them gain ground just like germany. Why go to nuclear war? Once someone releases nukes we're all fucked.
Eh, the problem is that nations can't just gain ground anymore. The last big one that tried to do that was Iraq in Kuwait as far as I know, and they got pounded for it pretty bad. Also, I don't think nukes are an end all be all engagement. Especially in the mid-east, there's the possibility of nukes flying in a limited engagement. Just because something goes off there, doesn't mean the US and Russia will be unloading their stockpiles.
But, then, that small country becomes WW2 germany, alliances start to be made. Us and brittain should be a guarantee. And why not say China is part of the Evil Axis, try to take them out, and become #1 again in so many financial ways.
There's a lot of ifs - ands - buts in this situation and relies on a pretty early 20th century idea of diplomacy and geopolitics. Things have changed a lot since the early days of alliance pacts and such, again with economics instead of protection being the leading factor. And unlike the protection pacts of old, economic pacts and agreements tend to curve towards stability.
Then again, we went into Iraq and as far as I know, don't have controll of the oil in that region. Maybe we do via 3rd parties/puppets/etc.... But if we were in a position to take china out of the picture, wouldn't we be much like Japan in WW2?
I hope I'm not way off topic here, just some things that I've been thinking about for a long while, and happened to see this thread while unable to sleep. I'm also an expect the worse guy
The problem with that is that Japan didn't hold the vast majority of America's debt at the time, and the very act of china putting economic sanctions or any kind of market manipulation would destroy the US economy.
I know its a lot of if's, and shouldn't go down that way. But you end up with so much of the world hating us after Iraq and Afghanastin. Our millitary is not what it once was. I tell people all the time that the US safe for one reason, we trully have the strongest Navy in the world. And the Navy is you're biggest resource at war. Protecting what you own, bring in troops/resources, supplying air raids, mobile cities, etc... I never realised how important the navy was to the nation until I served for 6 years... And I don't trust most of the young people joining. I was 24, in charge, and wanted to choke the 18-21 year olds.
We're overpopulated as an earth, theres a lot of tension... I really am scared for the children I bear into this world. I really do see something happening in the near future though. And I hope I'm wrong.
Best supra-national organization we had in WWII was League of Nations.
Now we have UN, EU, NATO, WTO, AU, ASEAN, AL and a whole bunch of new acronyms and alliances which means that declaring a war on any nation that isn't tiny or isolationist probably means that one of those treaties your foreign minister signed obligates you to defend that country, oh and your economy is also closely tied to it in some way, and hey, it has a whole bunch of allies too..
Global symmetrical warfare is all but dead thanks to global markets and debt reliance.
We'll see conflict on some scale in the next 50 years in the middle east, but it will not be World War 3 in any sense.
And we're already on China's side, they have America by the balls economically.
Yes but a big war changes that all. Don't forget the previous WW's were a lot of small things going on, one superpower escelating, and people choosing sides. Japan's attack in WW2, Germany was kicking ass, Japan needs resources, and at the time we were good allies. But then shit happens ( I know simplistic, not all the reasons etc... but shows during war nothing is sacred)
Potentially, it's hard to say. This is definitely possible on the smaller scale, with a local conflict pulling in regional forces, but we won't be seeing it on a global scale like WWI or II because of the inter-dependence of first world nations and because we've seen where such dog-piling leads.
And like you say, it's probably further off from the time table I listed. I would like to think most people know that now adays, if theres a World War, we are all totally fucked. But with so much conflict in the world right now and nuclear weapons, a small nation could rise to power relatively quickly with a FTW attitude. And we'd let them gain ground just like germany. Why go to nuclear war? Once someone releases nukes we're all fucked.
Eh, the problem is that nations can't just gain ground anymore. The last big one that tried to do that was Iraq in Kuwait as far as I know, and they got pounded for it pretty bad. Also, I don't think nukes are an end all be all engagement. Especially in the mid-east, there's the possibility of nukes flying in a limited engagement. Just because something goes off there, doesn't mean the US and Russia will be unloading their stockpiles.
But, then, that small country becomes WW2 germany, alliances start to be made. Us and brittain should be a guarantee. And why not say China is part of the Evil Axis, try to take them out, and become #1 again in so many financial ways.
There's a lot of ifs - ands - buts in this situation and relies on a pretty early 20th century idea of diplomacy and geopolitics. Things have changed a lot since the early days of alliance pacts and such, again with economics instead of protection being the leading factor. And unlike the protection pacts of old, economic pacts and agreements tend to curve towards stability.
Then again, we went into Iraq and as far as I know, don't have controll of the oil in that region. Maybe we do via 3rd parties/puppets/etc.... But if we were in a position to take china out of the picture, wouldn't we be much like Japan in WW2?
I hope I'm not way off topic here, just some things that I've been thinking about for a long while, and happened to see this thread while unable to sleep. I'm also an expect the worse guy
The problem with that is that Japan didn't hold the vast majority of America's debt at the time, and the very act of china putting economic sanctions or any kind of market manipulation would destroy the US economy.
I think you're overstating matters a little, China has what? 3% of the US annual gdp in debt? I'm not saying China couldn't crash the stock market should they want, but "destroy the us economy" is a bit dramatic. They most certainly would suffer as well, we're more or less joined at the hip.
override367 on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Dirty bombs are not nuclear bombs. Threatening still, but we're not talking mass destruction.
From what little I've read getting initally enriched to 20% or so is the slowest part but after that they can ramp it up to 90% in short order assuming they have the means to it. There is debate on the tech Iran has for this since its not uncommon for some nations to sell the means. I think Russia is at least one country that would sell but I have no [citation] for that.
There was an article I read somewhere that was dated 2008 that mentioned like Iran had like over 600k of nuclear material in stock that they could make one nuclear weapon assuming they could enrich as necessary.
I thought the enrichment process was being handled outside of Iran.
Dirty bombs are not nuclear bombs. Threatening still, but we're not talking mass destruction.
From what little I've read getting initally enriched to 20% or so is the slowest part but after that they can ramp it up to 90% in short order assuming they have the means to it. There is debate on the tech Iran has for this since its not uncommon for some nations to sell the means. I think Russia is at least one country that would sell but I have no [citation] for that.
There was an article I read somewhere that was dated 2008 that mentioned like Iran had like over 600k of nuclear material in stock that they could make one nuclear weapon assuming they could enrich as necessary.
I thought the enrichment process was being handled outside of Iran.
Global symmetrical warfare is all but dead thanks to global markets and debt reliance.
We'll see conflict on some scale in the next 50 years in the middle east, but it will not be World War 3 in any sense.
And we're already on China's side, they have America by the balls economically.
Yes but a big war changes that all. Don't forget the previous WW's were a lot of small things going on, one superpower escelating, and people choosing sides. Japan's attack in WW2, Germany was kicking ass, Japan needs resources, and at the time we were good allies. But then shit happens ( I know simplistic, not all the reasons etc... but shows during war nothing is sacred)
Potentially, it's hard to say. This is definitely possible on the smaller scale, with a local conflict pulling in regional forces, but we won't be seeing it on a global scale like WWI or II because of the inter-dependence of first world nations and because we've seen where such dog-piling leads.
And like you say, it's probably further off from the time table I listed. I would like to think most people know that now adays, if theres a World War, we are all totally fucked. But with so much conflict in the world right now and nuclear weapons, a small nation could rise to power relatively quickly with a FTW attitude. And we'd let them gain ground just like germany. Why go to nuclear war? Once someone releases nukes we're all fucked.
Eh, the problem is that nations can't just gain ground anymore. The last big one that tried to do that was Iraq in Kuwait as far as I know, and they got pounded for it pretty bad. Also, I don't think nukes are an end all be all engagement. Especially in the mid-east, there's the possibility of nukes flying in a limited engagement. Just because something goes off there, doesn't mean the US and Russia will be unloading their stockpiles.
But, then, that small country becomes WW2 germany, alliances start to be made. Us and brittain should be a guarantee. And why not say China is part of the Evil Axis, try to take them out, and become #1 again in so many financial ways.
There's a lot of ifs - ands - buts in this situation and relies on a pretty early 20th century idea of diplomacy and geopolitics. Things have changed a lot since the early days of alliance pacts and such, again with economics instead of protection being the leading factor. And unlike the protection pacts of old, economic pacts and agreements tend to curve towards stability.
Then again, we went into Iraq and as far as I know, don't have controll of the oil in that region. Maybe we do via 3rd parties/puppets/etc.... But if we were in a position to take china out of the picture, wouldn't we be much like Japan in WW2?
I hope I'm not way off topic here, just some things that I've been thinking about for a long while, and happened to see this thread while unable to sleep. I'm also an expect the worse guy
The problem with that is that Japan didn't hold the vast majority of America's debt at the time, and the very act of china putting economic sanctions or any kind of market manipulation would destroy the US economy.
I think you're overstating matters a little, China has what? 3% of the US annual gdp in debt? I'm not saying China couldn't crash the stock market should they want, but "destroy the us economy" is a bit dramatic. They most certainly would suffer as well, we're more or less joined at the hip.
Not really, there are other markets, and with the fragile state of the US economy now, I don't think the US is in much of a position to get rough with them
Of course not, but what I'm saying is that China is no more in a position to get rough with the US.
Like it or not, for the foreseeable future we're skipping hand in hand economically
Ehh, that's debatable. For the current time I'd say yes but China has a lot more economic breathing room and the situation only gets worse for America as time goes on
Of course not, but what I'm saying is that China is no more in a position to get rough with the US.
Like it or not, for the foreseeable future we're skipping hand in hand economically
Ehh, that's debatable. For the current time I'd say yes but China has a lot more economic breathing room and the situation only gets worse for America as time goes on
China has constraints of a different sort. They have an unspoken pact with the population where if they keep growth insanely high then the civil unrest will be at a minimum. If they can't maintain their 10% growth rate they'll have serious problems. This alone is enough to keep them from rocking the boat with one of their biggest trade partners, and there simply aren't markets to replace the US right now.
Of course not, but what I'm saying is that China is no more in a position to get rough with the US.
Like it or not, for the foreseeable future we're skipping hand in hand economically
Ehh, that's debatable. For the current time I'd say yes but China has a lot more economic breathing room and the situation only gets worse for America as time goes on
What China is doing isn't sustainable either, but for different reasons. Look, the US could sew up its deficit problems tomorrow if it had to, but it's more politically palatable to keep taking out loans or fuck the middle class than to do what has been done historically
Edit: sorry for going ot ill be good now
override367 on
0
Options
JakarrdIn the belly ofOklahomaRegistered Userregular
Dirty bombs are not nuclear bombs. Threatening still, but we're not talking mass destruction.
From what little I've read getting initally enriched to 20% or so is the slowest part but after that they can ramp it up to 90% in short order assuming they have the means to it. There is debate on the tech Iran has for this since its not uncommon for some nations to sell the means. I think Russia is at least one country that would sell but I have no [citation] for that.
There was an article I read somewhere that was dated 2008 that mentioned like Iran had like over 600k of nuclear material in stock that they could make one nuclear weapon assuming they could enrich as necessary.
I thought the enrichment process was being handled outside of Iran.
I've googled Iran Uranium Enrichment and it seems I get hits from current news topics that Iran is actually enriching its on Uranium.
... from Bloomberg article
Iran currently carries out enrichment at one site, at Natanz. A second plant is under construction at Qom, the IAEA said in May.
So I dunno, unless I'm not reading it right if Natanz is actually outside of Iran borders. Looks like Iran is already doing enrichment on uranium and appears to be headed to making more plants to increase that enrichment process.
Jakarrd on
Greetings Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.
I hope you're right. And part of my even thinking about all this before I saw this thread, was bomb shelters are again being marketed out there. And when they told me this I thought "You know, I don't think I'd want a bomb shelter. I'd probably rather just die then have to come up in a nuclear fallout world. Unless we're just gonna hang out for 5 years and make babies" lol.
Shit really is scary.
But what about my Vault-tech Jumpsuit and Pip-Boy 3000?
Best supra-national organization we had in WWII was League of Nations.
Now we have UN, EU, NATO, WTO, AU, ASEAN, AL and a whole bunch of new acronyms and alliances which means that declaring a war on any nation that isn't tiny or isolationist probably means that one of those treaties your foreign minister signed obligates you to defend that country, oh and your economy is also closely tied to it in some way, and hey, it has a whole bunch of allies too..
A world war is impossible these days.
Darn it, Crawl, you forgot the CSTO and SCO! Never any love for Eurasia!
(I kid, of course, but I felt you point deserved reinforcement.)
Best supra-national organization we had in WWII was League of Nations.
Now we have UN, EU, NATO, WTO, AU, ASEAN, AL and a whole bunch of new acronyms and alliances which means that declaring a war on any nation that isn't tiny or isolationist probably means that one of those treaties your foreign minister signed obligates you to defend that country, oh and your economy is also closely tied to it in some way, and hey, it has a whole bunch of allies too..
A world war is impossible these days.
Isn't a hodge podge of treaties and alliances what turned WW1 from a small regional war into a massive cluster fuck?
Best supra-national organization we had in WWII was League of Nations.
Now we have UN, EU, NATO, WTO, AU, ASEAN, AL and a whole bunch of new acronyms and alliances which means that declaring a war on any nation that isn't tiny or isolationist probably means that one of those treaties your foreign minister signed obligates you to defend that country, oh and your economy is also closely tied to it in some way, and hey, it has a whole bunch of allies too..
A world war is impossible these days.
Isn't a hodge podge of treaties and alliances what turned WW1 from a small regional war into a massive cluster fuck?
Yes, but they were completely different kinds of alliances.
The structures that existed then have no analogue today.
To be fair, many of them existed in secret as well.
By comparison, NATO, the UN, EU, SCO, CSTO, etc., are the exact opposite of secret in many regards. They have their own flags and permanent chaired committees. They actively promote their own doings.
Best supra-national organization we had in WWII was League of Nations.
Now we have UN, EU, NATO, WTO, AU, ASEAN, AL and a whole bunch of new acronyms and alliances which means that declaring a war on any nation that isn't tiny or isolationist probably means that one of those treaties your foreign minister signed obligates you to defend that country, oh and your economy is also closely tied to it in some way, and hey, it has a whole bunch of allies too..
A world war is impossible these days.
Isn't a hodge podge of treaties and alliances what turned WW1 from a small regional war into a massive cluster fuck?
Posts
Hmmm...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1JgJEcT1Ss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbpXDOKpwBQ
The american military can buy this for a price, as they bought their H&K assault rifles KMW main battle tank gun previously (the outdated model btw, the new one is not fitting into Abrahams turrets - the turrets are to small unfortunately), indeed many countries buy submarines, fighter bombers, guns, missiles and tanks from us. I hear the Meteor will replace the popular Sidewinder air-to-air missile in the not-so-far future.
Of course this is only quality of equipment. We could never compete with a military as big as the US army and we have no intention to (expensive, expensive). We also refrain from fielding any form of nuclear weapon.
We take a technology, analyze it, improve on it and then... instead of doing the cardinal error keeping the knowledge secret and fielding the stuff exclusively we sell the technology and with that money we develop the next generation of weapons.
The USA being a major customer in our military technology is an as good as possible reputation i guess.
The main advantage of the USA is the big bucks to do things they want to, the advantage of the Russians is their creativity, often coming up with totally unheard concepts and the great strenght of China is manpower. Our trait is simply building better weapons than anybody else, and these days we sell them to anybody who can afford it wich is usually the USA.
God this sounds so much like 2002.
That hasn't mattered since Vietnam.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
I probably should have been clear that I did not mean 'Germany' in the sense of 'Russia's nearby rivals'. It's...not that close, and it's not really a military rival over the major issues Russia has been willing to go to war over. For example, the frozen conflict zones and their national autonomy. Romania, Moldavia, Georgia--different story.
Which is not to say Germany is not a force to be reckoned with, especially in relation to its own neighbors. I may be analyzing things from too much of a historical standpoint--the Allied intervention during the Russian Civil War also had the best military equipment in the world (by far--the gap was way larger than it was now), so technology is only one concern (of course, at the same time, the nature of the technology involved was different).
I am not enough of an expert to say who builds the best equipment, so I'll have to take your word for it, and I'd agree in the sense that America does have a serious advantage in that it spends very nearly 50% of the world's military expenditures by itself (allowing it to buy pretty much anything it wants to, political repercussions aside, in almost any quantities). At the same time, the Russians are no slouch (in 2009, the Uralvagonzavod tank factory produced more of their most modern tank than all of the other countries of the world combined, if memory serves), and are paying attention to quality as well as quantity, contrary to the popular stereotype (of course, reality has constraints, so you can't have all of both, necessarily--especially if you are Russia).
Again, Russia, and China, is a long way for parity with the US. Russia is closer, but I personally think China will overtake them and, in time, the US.
The same could be said about any potential US losses during the bombing campaigns. Replacing pilots and equipment is faster than hiring new, competent scientists and rebuilding reactor sites.
To be clear, I think attacking Iran would be a terrible, terrible idea. But I just thought that needed to be said.
And Iran wouldn't really be able to stand against a US attack. Yes the Iranian army is not the Iraqi army, but it still has rusted and outdated equipment, and in far less numbers, and their logistics capacity is nothing close to the US. Note that I'm talking about the regular army, not an insurgency or the Quds.
China will never come anywhere close to overtaking the US. At some point they might get some jets that could rival the F-22, but they would never be able to field them in large numbers. By the time they're anywhere close to the spending we are at now, we'll already be years ahead in tech, training, and experience. Plus we got the advantage of having this motherfucker right here.
Well, the T90 can't drive underwater (important when crossing rivers) but it has serious firepower, range and armor. Its a little slow but also comes with standart anti-missile systems. Russian equipment was always cost efficient. Maybe a little less sophisticated but production numbers always made up for this. Germans always build the best possible weapons with no compromises to costs wich is not that efficient. Plus everything we learned about tank design we learned from the Russians during WWII, especially when it comes to things like tank armor.
In the case of China its even less quality of equipment and more strenght in economy and numbers. You could say Russia is doing a balanced approach to military equipment whilst China and Germany represent the respective opposite ends of the spectrum.
I think all three approaches work and its really only a matter of avaiable manpower. China can afford to loose people and therefore they have less need protecting their soldiers. Germany on the other hand was always weak in numbers and therefore the tendancy to send soldiers into war with the best aviable protection is understandable.
If a german artellery has to compede with ten chinese artellery systems in a hypotetical scenario it HAS to be an highly mobile auto-loading rapid fire artellery system wich can cross rivers without a bridge. As simple as that.
A Dirty bombs most damaging effect is on the mental state of the populace.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
We're due for WW3. I'm a proud 30 year old navy vet. Did 6 years. I feel like I'm going to have to rejoin before my age expirement hits due to this. Everybody has nukes, the middle east is what its been for the past 1000 years, and eventually china is going to do something/somebody is going to do something to china. I don't see how we end up on the same side as them.
The Irans, N. Korea's, IRAQ/Afghanistan (If we don't set up puppet gov) will be big players in starting the conflict.
We'll see conflict on some scale in the next 50 years in the middle east, but it will not be World War 3 in any sense.
And we're already on China's side, they have America by the balls economically.
Look on the plus side: it'll be resolved decisively before you even get to the recruitment office.
That looks to have the ground clearance of a cinderblock.
hahahaoohohohoh
MGS2D is right, remember there will never be a nuclear war because of all the real estate involved. Also, China's 'belligerence' extends to two things: Places that were historically parts of China, and those assholes in Japan.
Really? I assumed it had the T-80's snorkel capability (the T-80 can ford rivers, this much I know). Well, it's a specialized concern--kind of how like how the BMP-3 is completely, and immediately, amphibious (it can even fire while in the water, apparently), while most other IFVs (like the Marder) are not, or at best, need special kits to become amphibious. It could make a huge difference in a campaign--or, conversely, it could make no difference.
One thing the Russians have, I suppose, is fuel efficiency on their side--at least in the area of tanks. But again, that's one advantage, in a long list of advantages and disadvantages. Fuel efficiency becomes a matter of simple mathematics--one tank weighs two-thirds of what the other does, and is going to consume less fuel--but the heavier tank has advantages in other areas in turn (obviously armor protection).
Different sides have different fuel reserves they can call upon.
Again, it's difficult to say overall, because there are so many concerns when it comes to reaching parity. Then there's the whole issue of training, experience, and tactics, which is an entirely other huge issue.
Zing!
Yes but a big war changes that all. Don't forget the previous WW's were a lot of small things going on, one superpower escelating, and people choosing sides. Japan's attack in WW2, Germany was kicking ass, Japan needs resources, and at the time we were good allies. But then shit happens ( I know simplistic, not all the reasons etc... but shows during war nothing is sacred)
And like you say, it's probably further off from the time table I listed. I would like to think most people know that now adays, if theres a World War, we are all totally fucked. But with so much conflict in the world right now and nuclear weapons, a small nation could rise to power relatively quickly with a FTW attitude. And we'd let them gain ground just like germany. Why go to nuclear war? Once someone releases nukes we're all fucked.
But, then, that small country becomes WW2 germany, alliances start to be made. Us and brittain should be a guarantee. And why not say China is part of the Evil Axis, try to take them out, and become #1 again in so many financial ways.
Then again, we went into Iraq and as far as I know, don't have controll of the oil in that region. Maybe we do via 3rd parties/puppets/etc.... But if we were in a position to take china out of the picture, wouldn't we be much like Japan in WW2?
I hope I'm not way off topic here, just some things that I've been thinking about for a long while, and happened to see this thread while unable to sleep. I'm also an expect the worse guy
I hope you're right. And part of my even thinking about all this before I saw this thread, was bomb shelters are again being marketed out there. And when they told me this I thought "You know, I don't think I'd want a bomb shelter. I'd probably rather just die then have to come up in a nuclear fallout world. Unless we're just gonna hang out for 5 years and make babies" lol.
Shit really is scary.
From what little I've read getting initally enriched to 20% or so is the slowest part but after that they can ramp it up to 90% in short order assuming they have the means to it. There is debate on the tech Iran has for this since its not uncommon for some nations to sell the means. I think Russia is at least one country that would sell but I have no [citation] for that.
There was an article I read somewhere that was dated 2008 that mentioned like Iran had like over 600k of nuclear material in stock that they could make one nuclear weapon assuming they could enrich as necessary.
Potentially, it's hard to say. This is definitely possible on the smaller scale, with a local conflict pulling in regional forces, but we won't be seeing it on a global scale like WWI or II because of the inter-dependence of first world nations and because we've seen where such dog-piling leads.
Eh, the problem is that nations can't just gain ground anymore. The last big one that tried to do that was Iraq in Kuwait as far as I know, and they got pounded for it pretty bad. Also, I don't think nukes are an end all be all engagement. Especially in the mid-east, there's the possibility of nukes flying in a limited engagement. Just because something goes off there, doesn't mean the US and Russia will be unloading their stockpiles.
There's a lot of ifs - ands - buts in this situation and relies on a pretty early 20th century idea of diplomacy and geopolitics. Things have changed a lot since the early days of alliance pacts and such, again with economics instead of protection being the leading factor. And unlike the protection pacts of old, economic pacts and agreements tend to curve towards stability.
The problem with that is that Japan didn't hold the vast majority of America's debt at the time, and the very act of china putting economic sanctions or any kind of market manipulation would destroy the US economy.
We're overpopulated as an earth, theres a lot of tension... I really am scared for the children I bear into this world. I really do see something happening in the near future though. And I hope I'm wrong.
Things are relatively benign comparably
I totally understand and agree.
Now we have UN, EU, NATO, WTO, AU, ASEAN, AL and a whole bunch of new acronyms and alliances which means that declaring a war on any nation that isn't tiny or isolationist probably means that one of those treaties your foreign minister signed obligates you to defend that country, oh and your economy is also closely tied to it in some way, and hey, it has a whole bunch of allies too..
A world war is impossible these days.
I think you're overstating matters a little, China has what? 3% of the US annual gdp in debt? I'm not saying China couldn't crash the stock market should they want, but "destroy the us economy" is a bit dramatic. They most certainly would suffer as well, we're more or less joined at the hip.
I thought the enrichment process was being handled outside of Iran.
It is.
Not really, there are other markets, and with the fragile state of the US economy now, I don't think the US is in much of a position to get rough with them
Like it or not, for the foreseeable future we're skipping hand in hand economically
Ehh, that's debatable. For the current time I'd say yes but China has a lot more economic breathing room and the situation only gets worse for America as time goes on
China has constraints of a different sort. They have an unspoken pact with the population where if they keep growth insanely high then the civil unrest will be at a minimum. If they can't maintain their 10% growth rate they'll have serious problems. This alone is enough to keep them from rocking the boat with one of their biggest trade partners, and there simply aren't markets to replace the US right now.
What China is doing isn't sustainable either, but for different reasons. Look, the US could sew up its deficit problems tomorrow if it had to, but it's more politically palatable to keep taking out loans or fuck the middle class than to do what has been done historically
Edit: sorry for going ot ill be good now
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/iran-law-mandates-uranium-production-orders-measures-against-cargo-checks.html
I've googled Iran Uranium Enrichment and it seems I get hits from current news topics that Iran is actually enriching its on Uranium.
... from Bloomberg article
So I dunno, unless I'm not reading it right if Natanz is actually outside of Iran borders. Looks like Iran is already doing enrichment on uranium and appears to be headed to making more plants to increase that enrichment process.
A dirty bomb can be more than just psychological warfare. ENT cancers are nasty.
Darn it, Crawl, you forgot the CSTO and SCO! Never any love for Eurasia!
(I kid, of course, but I felt you point deserved reinforcement.)
Isn't a hodge podge of treaties and alliances what turned WW1 from a small regional war into a massive cluster fuck?
Yes, but they were completely different kinds of alliances.
The structures that existed then have no analogue today.
By comparison, NATO, the UN, EU, SCO, CSTO, etc., are the exact opposite of secret in many regards. They have their own flags and permanent chaired committees. They actively promote their own doings.
Between two countries, not like twenty.