|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:09 PM |
in all honesty, who would win?
"legend stop being my favorite c&ger" - Loveydovy |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Axtrov
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3293 |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:10 PM |
are you kidding?
considering that this war only includes uk and us, the us would destory the uk |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:11 PM |
usa would turn UK into a desert in 3 seconds
usa you dumbass mfg |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:12 PM |
ik us>uk
Well, once we have the national parks, we have the bears and wolves on our side, which will make us unbeatable. I guess the big question here is: Are the world's combined forces—including those mad North Koreans, because every little helps—enough to defeat those of the US? Yes, but only if the US is on the offensive or only if defeat does not equate to conquer or destroy, which it generally does not. The world could, for example, certainly contain the US as the US did the Soviet Union.
But the question you are really asking, if I am correct, is: Are the world's combined forces enough to conquer the United States? Here the answer is no, for it is much harder to project force. It requires logistical resources that the rest of the world simply does not have.
"legend stop being my favorite c&ger" - Loveydovy |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
bdog9107
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 142 |
|
| |
|
Axtrov
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3293 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:14 PM |
>we have the bears and wolves on our side,
stopped reading that paragraph
us would still destroy both north & south korea put together |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:15 PM |
| US would win, however this war would probably never happen. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Chaarusu
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 8491 |
|
| |
|
Seany112
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Sep 2010 |
| Total Posts: 8543 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:18 PM |
'we have bears and wolves on our side'
it's okay guys, those loud bangs are just me whacking my face against my desk.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tivar
|
  |
| Joined: 05 May 2014 |
| Total Posts: 16021 |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:20 PM |
Lol why is it always USA against uk Their allies lol. Too reparative and boring I'd rather see USA vs Iran threads lol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:21 PM |
| usa vs iran wouldnt even be comparative.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ghost0ps
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Aug 2012 |
| Total Posts: 14516 |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:23 PM |
Just any conparassion besides USA vs uk lol. They're getting toooo boring |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:25 PM |
in ro-nation terms, UK has defeated USA 4-5 times now
trololololol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:27 PM |
Ronations arnt that relevant though Lol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Zanziber
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 5088 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:28 PM |
| in a war between just the 2 uk would win it has superior tech firepower and population |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:28 PM |
| Irl America would win because Nuclear bomb. But it'd never happen. How come people always do these arguements? UK and US are great allies, why not US/UK v Russia? Or China? Or Iran? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:29 PM |
>n a war between just the 2 uk would win it has superior tech firepower and population
you sir are stupid af |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Rokill15
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Oct 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1036 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:30 PM |
| I'm in UK- Doe I say US Obama will rek us all. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 03:32 PM |
| Besides though, ye can't just assume who'd win Anyway. It depends on the circumstances of the war and the figures. If the US attacked the UK, chances are it'd be a Stalemate, if the UK attacked the US, UK forces would be Destroyed. UK would probably fight Murica back if the US invaded UK territory and assuming the US doesn't use Nuclear Bombs. Both have pretty strong Militaries. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|