No shit, George. That wouldn't be why I pointed that out, since Apreche seems to think "We have carriers" is the be all and end all of Naval power, and the only thing to consider when sending them out.
Well in the context of waging a war, they will be center stage. They carry all the planes and armaments after all.
I'm fairly sure that there is no possible scenario where war would ever happen between the Commonwealth and the US. If it ever did, it would be between the US and an individual member, likely having already itself been expelled.
Oh yeah, also, the Commonweath of Nations has no formal defense pact. So...pretty much Churba's entire argument is full of fail. Current military alliances (via wiki):
I'm fairly sure that there is no possible scenario where war would ever happen between the Commonwealth and the US. If it ever did, it would be between the US and an individual member, likely having already itself been expelled.
Oh yeah, also, the Commonweath of Nations has no formal defense pact. So...pretty much Churba's entire argument is full of fail.
We've been talking at length about our ability to attack pretty much anyone in the world, a la Force Projection. What do you think our force projection capabilities are within our own country? I'll give you a hint, we don't have to go that far. I don't think the Canadians would even make it to Albany be they got curb stomped.
You can focus enormous force on a small number of points, but can you focus on all necessary fronts at once? Spread yourself too thin, and you're screwed.
And this whole scenario is based on you saying when couldn't invade Australian easily. Big fucking deal. It's much more likely that we'd get involved with a no-holds-barred war with Iran.
No, this whole Scenario is based on an offhand comment and a little national pride being thrown around, which apparently half the US based forumites had to arc up at, since we can't have people going around saying that the US might have trouble beating them. Typical behaviour, but if I'd have thought that it would get this bad, I'd have not bothered to make the comment that threatened the famous seppo national ego, so closely tied to their mythical ability to take on everyone and everything at once, and not lose a single soldier.
Likely? I never said it was likely. If you'd have bothered to actually read what you're replying to, I noted that even within the given scenario, it'd be unlikely.
Let me make this absolutely clear - I'm not saying any of it is likely, or that it's even useful information. I didn't even mean to start an argument with that offhand comment, I simply forgot how precious seppos get about their perceived Military Might.
So...pretty much Churba's entire argument is full of fail.
Says the Dumb bastard who uses a map as an example that doesn't even include ANZUS. Y'know, the one between Australia, New Zealand, And this tiny, out of the way, little known nation that I've heard people call The United states of America. Fuckwit.
Clearly, the true power of creationism is to start flame wars about unrelated topics.
Another thing to consider here is the US has not mobilized it's economy for war since World War 2. All of our current war waging abilities are based on a mostly unrelated commercial economy.
Says the Dumb bastard who uses a map as an example that doesn't even include ANZUS. Y'know, the one between Australia, New Zealand, And this tiny, out of the way, little known nation that I've heard people call The United states of America. Fuckwit.
Hey, I didn't make the map and ANZUS is clearly listed in the article, but it still makes you completely wrong about how the entire world would come save your pretty little kangaroos from the big bad Amuricans. Also, it only lists major coalitions. Fuckwit.
Hey, I didn't make the map and ANZUS is clearly listed in the article, but it still makes you completely wrong about how the entire world would come save your pretty little kangaroos from the big bad Amuricans. Also, it only listsmajorcoalitions. Fuckwit.
Aw, Precious Seppo. Go back to claiming you won the Vietnam war next, shall we? Or maybe how if it wasn't for you, the rest of the world would be speaking German?
To summarize:
Best Summary I've seen all thread, and I'll even suggest the most accurate, until we start including more names.
As a pure sidenote - Fuckwit is a very satisfying curse to use.
No, this whole Scenario is based on an offhand comment and a little national pride being thrown around, which apparently half the US based forumites had to arc up at, since we can't have people going around saying that the US might have trouble beating them. Typical behaviour, but if I'd have thought that it would get this bad, I'd have not bothered to make the comment that threatened the famous seppo national ego, so closely tied to their mythical ability to take on everyone and everything at once, and not lose a single soldier.
Easy there boy. we're really not getting that wound up about this at all, we just think we'd win is all. Sure, Australia might be a bit tough and you'll see us coming, but being able to see us coming isn't going to save you.
Or maybe how if it wasn't for you, the rest of the world would be speaking German?
Well I don't know about the world, but there wouldn't be a Queen anymore, that's for sure.
Also, the reason we didn't win the Vietnam war was because we were trying to conquer. No matter how strong you are, occupation sucks. That's why we're having a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are trying to occupy. Certainly, occupying Australia would be a huge pain in the ass. However, simply decimating Australia into a pile of rubble would be so much easier. If we really wanted to do it, there's pretty much nothing that can be done to stop it.
Easy there boy. we're really not getting that wound up about this at all, we just think we'd win is all. Sure, Australia might be a bit tough and you'll see us coming, but being able to see us coming isn't going to save you.
Also, I'm not even arguing for a win. About twenty posts, if so many of you weren't proving Nine right about not being so great with the reading -
I'm not saying you'd lose, But be damned if it wouldn't be a Pyrrhic victory.
If even a single bloody one of you could read, you'd have noticed I'm agreeing that you'd win, I'm just saying that it'd be very, very costly.
Well I don't know about the world, but there wouldn't be a Queen anymore, that's for sure.
I wouldn't really agree with that - Most of the Major battles of the war, the US wasn't really involved to any great degree, and even when they were, in a single battle - the battle of Stalingrad, one of the most major turning points in the war - the Russians lost more men than the Americans sent into battle. Really, the US? Take them or leave then in WW2. The Reich was boned with or without the US - They'd plowed through Europe, but they were being turned back. They lost north Africa, they couldn't crack the UK, and the whole thing was starting to collapse from the inside. Along with that, they had Stalin and Russia poised to go through them like a chainsaw through butter. Their chances were Buckleys and None.
EDIT - However, I won't deny the USA's Valuable Contributions of both intelligence, resources, and the blood of it's young men.
Also, the reason we didn't win the Vietnam war was because we were trying to conquer.
Er, Actually, it wasn't. The US went in to try and keep out a Communist takeover of South Vietnam, primarily coming from north Vietnam. You were on the Defence, not the offence.
However, simply decimating Australia into a pile of rubble would be so much easier. If we really wanted to do it, there's pretty much nothing that can be done to stop it.
Not as easy as you think - which isn't surprising, considering your level of the knowledge on the topic - as shown by the automated killing machines show - is very, very low. It'd pretty much take long sustained bombardment, combined with both aerial and land-based operations to actually do it without nukes. You could, but you'd get your teeth kicked in and your bollocks cut off during the process.
I wouldn't really agree with that - Most of the Major battles of the war, the US wasn't really involved to any great degree, and even when they were, in a single battle - the battle of Stalingrad, one of the most major turning points in the war - the Russians lost more men than the Americans sent into battle. Really, the US? Take them or leave then in WW2. The Reich was boned with or without the US - They'd plowed through Europe, but they were being turned back. They lost north Africa, they couldn't crack the UK, and the whole thing was starting to collapse from the inside. Along with that, they had Stalin and Russia poised to go through them like a chainsaw through butter. Their chances were Buckleys and None.
EDIT - However, I won't deny the USA's Valuable Contributions of both intelligence, resources, and the blood of it's young men.
This is such an oversimplification of the situation that it's baffling. The world would be a much different place without US involvement in World War 2. Australia would probably be speaking Japanese ~_^
I wouldn't really agree with that - Most of the Major battles of the war, the US wasn't really involved to any great degree, and even when they were, in a single battle - the battle of Stalingrad, one of the most major turning points in the war - the Russians lost more men than the Americans sent into battle. Really, the US? Take them or leave then in WW2. The Reich was boned with or without the US - They'd plowed through Europe, but they were being turned back. They lost north Africa, they couldn't crack the UK, and the whole thing was starting to collapse from the inside. Along with that, they had Stalin and Russia poised to go through them like a chainsaw through butter. Their chances were Buckleys and None.
EDIT - However, I won't deny the USA's Valuable Contributions of both intelligence, resources, and the blood of it's young men.
The only reason they couldn't crack the UK was because of the support the of the USA prior to their official entry to the war. Without us giving them armaments they had no hope of sustaining a war effort against the ruthlessly efficient and technically superior Germans. As for Russia vs. USA, Stalin fought in a very different fashion than we did, mostly he didn't really value the lives of his soldiers. Regardless of the tactics, not going to argue that the Russians shouldered the burden of the Eastern front. However, I believe the USA was heavily involved in the North African theater. They were also heavily involved with daylight bombing of Germany with B-17 Flying Fortresses flown from the UK. And let's not forget the Pacific Theater where we put Japan's nose out of joint.
And let's not forget the Pacific Theater where we put Japan's nose out of joint.
True that, but we laid a lot of the groundwork, right down to supplying you with captured codebooks which greatly aided the effort. However, despite Andrew's (I assume, because if it's not, he's far more oblivious than I give him credit for) half-joking assertion, Japan had no plan to invade us - they were not stupid, and knew that it would be suicide at that time and into the foreseeable future - and simply planned to cut us off from the US, the UK, and the battle itself by taking key cities on the northern and eastern coasts, before holding there for as long as they wanted.
As a point of pride, They tried to do too much with it, and this plan did not go so well for them. Despite superior numbers and superior armament, we dealt them a pretty decent kicking, and left some pretty big dents in their war efforts.
I won't argue that Stalin had the best tactic - his battle plan was best described as a meat grinder - nor would I use it myself, but they were a fearsome force toward the end of the war, partially because of that. Stalin couldn't give less of a fuck about lives, he cared about winning, and by god, if he had to throw eight million lives away to get it, he would.
China's economic support in the war was also quite valuable. As for North Africa, that was a hell of a shitfight, as for heavily involved, Not quite the term I'd use - but involved and invaluable, certainly.
No shit, this has turned into nothing but a bunch of children in the school yard. With the "my dad can beat your dad" argument going on.
Hardly, My grandmother could beat up any one of your dads.
Hardly, My grandmother could beat up any one of your dads.
Well if you're going to bring grandmothers into this. It's a totally different story, our grandmothers could have taken over they whole world in a week.
True that. Even I'm in awe of her. My grandmother is a pretty hard lady. She matched me drink for drink at her sister's 90th in Maryborough - not a small feat, for an 86 year old - where a bunch of us made a concentrated effort to essentially drink the post office hotel dry, and I've seen her not only drop a full grown male kangaroo in a single shot with my 30.08, but drag it to the ute, bounce, wrestle, and otherwise drive said ute over very rough terrain, then gut, skin and butcher said kangaroo back at camp. She also makes a very mean Rice Pudding, and is pretty deadly at lawn bowls, as well as being a champion line dancer. Hell of a mouth on her, too, swears like a drunken sailor.
You do not want to fuck with my grandmother, because she will gut you like a fish.
True that. Even I'm in awe of her. My grandmother is a pretty hard lady. She matched me drink for drink at her sister's 90th in Maryborough - not a small feat, for an 86 year old - where a bunch of us made a concentrated effort to essentially drink the post office hotel dry, and I've seen her not only drop a full grown male kangaroo in a single shot with my 30.08, but drag it to the ute, bounce, wrestle, and otherwise drive said ute over very rough terrain, then gut, skin and butcher said kangaroo back at camp. She also makes a very mean Rice Pudding, and is pretty deadly at lawn bowls, as well as being a champion line dancer. Hell of a mouth on her, too, swears like a drunken sailor.
You do not want to fuck with my grandmother,because she will gut you like a fish.
She sounds like the Nega version of Granny from the Sylvester and tweety cartoons.
Comments
Current military alliances (via wiki):
Likely? I never said it was likely. If you'd have bothered to actually read what you're replying to, I noted that even within the given scenario, it'd be unlikely.
Let me make this absolutely clear - I'm not saying any of it is likely, or that it's even useful information. I didn't even mean to start an argument with that offhand comment, I simply forgot how precious seppos get about their perceived Military Might. Says the Dumb bastard who uses a map as an example that doesn't even include ANZUS. Y'know, the one between Australia, New Zealand, And this tiny, out of the way, little known nation that I've heard people call The United states of America. Fuckwit. See above commentary about Seppos being precious.
As a pure sidenote - Fuckwit is a very satisfying curse to use.
Can we get back to discussion of reality?
Really, the US? Take them or leave then in WW2. The Reich was boned with or without the US - They'd plowed through Europe, but they were being turned back. They lost north Africa, they couldn't crack the UK, and the whole thing was starting to collapse from the inside. Along with that, they had Stalin and Russia poised to go through them like a chainsaw through butter. Their chances were Buckleys and None.
EDIT - However, I won't deny the USA's Valuable Contributions of both intelligence, resources, and the blood of it's young men. Er, Actually, it wasn't. The US went in to try and keep out a Communist takeover of South Vietnam, primarily coming from north Vietnam. You were on the Defence, not the offence. Not as easy as you think - which isn't surprising, considering your level of the knowledge on the topic - as shown by the automated killing machines show - is very, very low. It'd pretty much take long sustained bombardment, combined with both aerial and land-based operations to actually do it without nukes. You could, but you'd get your teeth kicked in and your bollocks cut off during the process. Word, brother.
As a point of pride, They tried to do too much with it, and this plan did not go so well for them. Despite superior numbers and superior armament, we dealt them a pretty decent kicking, and left some pretty big dents in their war efforts.
I won't argue that Stalin had the best tactic - his battle plan was best described as a meat grinder - nor would I use it myself, but they were a fearsome force toward the end of the war, partially because of that. Stalin couldn't give less of a fuck about lives, he cared about winning, and by god, if he had to throw eight million lives away to get it, he would.
China's economic support in the war was also quite valuable. As for North Africa, that was a hell of a shitfight, as for heavily involved, Not quite the term I'd use - but involved and invaluable, certainly. Hardly, My grandmother could beat up any one of your dads.
You do not want to fuck with my grandmother, because she will gut you like a fish.