No two democracies has ever gone to war with eachother and so will it remain.
Quite early on the thread, but. United Kingdom has waged war against a democracy. Back in.. '41, December 6th. Canada, New Zealand, Aussies and South Africans following. Fighting was quite limited, but there was a carrier air strike and escorts. Also worth noting that it was not joint Allied declaration of war, as United States did, in fact, congratulate Finns for retaking Karelia before UK declared war. (Sure, later on they cut diplomatic relations, but it wasn't until Ryti-Rippentrop)
Anyways. Conventional warfarel.. I don't know. Asia or Europe could prevail in Eurasia (not solemly though, I doubdt. Too long supply lines for China-France for one faction to dominate), USA would dominate in both Americas. I doubdt that any faction would be able to mount succesful naval assault. Not until many, many years of infighting at least. At which point their starting navy/air force would be either vanquished or obsolete.
Sucks to be European though... there's like no shelters here... anywhere. There are very few located underneath hospitals and churches but most have been either "forgotten" or destroyed. And those that we do have are only for the "elite".
[/COLOR]Chamberlain had seen WW1. So had the french and the british. That is why it happened the way it did : They were not willing to fight. The last thing they wanted was another war.
And his appeasing and inaction led to the escalation if the biggest war in history. Again. The dude was Britain's James Buchanon (the President of the US that southern states began seceding under, and who twiddled his thumbs while it was happening and left the problem to Lincoln because he didn't want to tarnish his legacy).
You, and almost everyone so easily supporting a US dominance forget one key factor. Something American military experts warn about frequently.....
The US is the strongest military force on earth.. by numbers, by weaponry.. But it is at the same time the weakest of all military super powers. It's spread out so far all over the globe, that in case of a real war, the US would be defeated long before they could recall and regroup their forces into one force to be as effective as it could be.
The country is banking entirely on it's space/ground radar system, to intercept any kind of intrusion. If that system fails, only in parts. Or if it becomes subject to sabotage, the country itself is "blind" and almost defenseless. Geographically, the USA is in a huge disadvantage, regarding border safety. The borders are literally impossible to defend from an intrusion. Thousands and thousands of miles coast, and a huge again thousands of miles uncontrollable border in the north.
Plus, just about every force on earth has a well rested military force available, unlike the US, where there's an army in place that's tired out from ongoing military deployments for decades.
All in all, I am not so sure about the USA's capabilities as the dominant force, in a serious world wide conflict.
And in evaluation of the recent wars..
How would one think the USA can handle the entire planet, if they couldn't successfully have a war with a economically, and militaristic deprived country like Iraq...
10 years, and even with help of some satellite countries that depend too much on US trade, to say no.
If you cannot get the job done in Iraq within 10 years, how would you get the job done if you stand against most of the World, when you have to take on armies that can actually fight back, highly efficient?
That's not a bashing now. That's an analysis. Just like I would analyze a game in any sport. If you suck against a 3rd division team, or even some in a row, how do you plan to beat a first division team?
The stats we got as references should be put in question for one reason only.
Anyone who has any plans on starting a war on larger scale, will highly likely produce weapons in all secret no one knows anything about. Weapons and technology that is by now unknown are likely to be revealed under such scenario. From there, any serious speculation is hard to make at all.
There are several nations with the technical knowledge and capability of pulling an ace out underneath the cloak, that is game changing.
k as a non american id like to say for purposes of this discussion i think the WWIII being discussed will be alot different to what is goin on in iraq and afgan, the us and its allies in these countries are held under a massive leash by the internet and civilian casualties, if NATO wanted to just destroy iraq of afgan (render them useless in a WWIII) could be done in less than 24HRS without nukes but not caring bout the Bad media ie civilian casualties that keep thier hands tied atm
I'm fairly certain the discussion here is which military force would win in a battle, not which one would have a successful time following that up with an understaffed and poorly understood occupation. At the time of invasion, the Iraqi Army was still one of the largest in the world, yet it took 21 days to capture and defeat all major fighting forces in Iraq. THIS is the time that should be looked at, NOT the 10 years of rebuilding process that has been ongoing.
A total war involving nations isn't going to be concerned with how effective a targets government functions after they're done, nor are they going to pump billions into improving the local infrastructure. The rebuilding process isn't a "war", and anyone who believes that is perpetuating the same piss-poor political concepts that have caused it to drag out as long as it has, anyways, through this constant cycle of reducing and increasing force projection.
With Japan and China almost at war against eachother a great war seems almost unavoidable. And USA promised to help Japan if the need should arise, after WW2.
Hopefully it'll start before Iran gets their nukes....