In a time of world war were any country to launch a ballistic missile, I do not hesitate to say that the full might of the United would be discovered. Don't forget the US has fleets in every ocean in the world, this enables them to deploy soldiers from virtually anywhere.
In a time of world war were any country to launch a ballistic missile, I do not hesitate to say that the full might of the United would be discovered. Don't forget the US has fleets in every ocean in the world, this enables them to deploy soldiers from virtually anywhere.
Wrong. Although Putin has more numbers in nuclear weapons than us, they will probably make more. But due to the rush of war, they will be careless and mistakes will happen often. Maybe another meltdown perhaps?
Plus, the US is so proficient in the art of sabotage, that the missiles will probably not work or explode upon launch.
LOL. I believe that Canada, Greenland, and Iraq should team up, because no one likes them xD. Truthfully, Iraq is hated, in my opinion, largely because of the U.S.'s actions
people who would think america would win are wrong because china,russia,germany,japan most of our old enemies would join up to kick our *****
Germany are more likely to help the USA in my opinion, and obviously USA also have a fair amount of strong EU allies and most of the commonwealth countries too. USA wouldn't win on their own, no, but the side the USA is fighting on probably would if a big war was to break out.
I would like to point out to both of you that such extremely short posts, or posts which add nothing to the conversation, are typically considered spam and are frowned upon in the AG community.
OT: I would think that one of the major factors would be the type of war, as well as the motivations for the citizenry to support it.
As we saw in the US during the second world war, the support of the populace allowed the government and the military to take all measures necessary to ensure success, as well as promoting a strong sense of national pride. This boosted the manufacture of necessary equipment, increased the morale of the troops, and gave the government the ability to make quick, necessary decisions without public resistance. This is critical to the success of a conflict.
In contrast, during Vietnam, the populace was largely against the war and as such production was low, morale was horrible, and the politicians were unable to garner enough political support to take the actions necessary to ensure a complete victory.
In contrast, during Vietnam, the populace was largely against the war and as such production was low, morale was horrible, and the politicians were unable to garner enough political support to take the actions necessary to ensure a complete victory.
Or any type of victory for that matter.
However, I agree it would depend on how the citizens of the countries involved feel. The problem with democracy is that the government cannot force (in the way Dictators can) the populace to support the war and if the people turn against war then the war goes no where.
As a great man always said... "World War 3 will not be fought with guns, and bombs, rather with sticks and stones"
That would be Einstein, and it actually went more like this: "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
