US vs the world - hypothetical war

[Zardoz]

In this exciting scenario(as a fantasy), I think Russia and NATO has enough mobility, from air and sea, to land on American soil. Rest of the world, lead by China will land from Canada and Mexico(both enemies of the U.S.) and work the North and South of the border. Once they are inside the U.S. border, massive ground forces will be unstoppable, even by air IMO.

Okay, since we're playing war games:

Don't be silly. Assuming Russia and NATO had so much as a tugboat left (after the 13 carrier battle groups and the attack submarines did what they do best) to move troops, you seem to be unaware of the arsenal the U.S. has stashed on its own soil.

I have to ask how the invasion forces would get through the swarms of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-117As, F-111Bs, A-10s, B-52s, B-1Bs, and B-2s that would fill the sky. Are you aware of what just those 50-year-old B-52s would do to "massive ground troops"?

 

[a6m5]

Okay, since we're playing war games:

Don't be silly. Assuming Russia and NATO had so much as a tugboat left (after the 13 carrier battle groups and the attack submarines did what they do best) to move troops, you seem to be unaware of the arsenal the U.S. has stashed on its own soil.

I have to ask how the invasion forces would get through the swarms of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-117As, F-111Bs, A-10s, B-52s, B-1Bs, and B-2s that would fill the sky. Are you aware of what just those 50-year-old B-52s would do to "massive ground troops"?

Well, in East Asia alone(not even counting India, Pakistan, S.E. Asia), there are thousands of military planes(China alone has over 3000). I don't even know how many there are in Middle East, Europe, Australia and the rest of America, but I'm sure it's a lot more.

American attack planes and bombers won't do much good if it's getting shot down by enemy fighters and anti-airs. And like I said, once the invasion forces comes in from all four sides, even with all the air crafts U.S. got, it'd be impossible to cover all areas. And bombing will lose it's effectiveness, once the invasion forces crosses U.S. borders. Once you start bombing your own cities, you won't have much longer.

Naval power is definitely where U.S. packs most punch. Yes, carrier battle groups are the most feared in the world, but in the scenario of countless subs, ships and jets attacking the group, attackers will wear them out. This wouldn't happen in real wars, but we are talking about everybody against the U.S. here. Russia(and it's ex-Soviets) will be active in both the Atlantic and Pacific. In the Atlantic, it will be the NATO and the Russians. In the Pacific, there are three decent navies. China, Russia and Japan. Don't knock the countries that I didn't mention. I'm sure when they join their forces, they'll keep an entire U.S. Navy fleet very busy.

Basically, I think I see the U.S. being outnumbered. If you had said half the world, I might actually agree with ya.

 

[Duke]

Well, in East Asia alone(not even counting India, Pakistan, S.E. Asia), there are thousands of military planes(China alone has over 3000). I don't even know how many there are in Middle East, Europe, Australia and the rest of America, but I'm sure it's a lot more.

American attack planes and bombers won't do much good if it's getting shot down by enemy fighters and anti-airs.

No offense, but I've actually met guys whose job it is to train military pilots for some of the countries and areas you've mentioned. I'm still betting the whole ranch on the US air superiority, and I'm confident that's a safe bet.

There are, of course, some excellent pilots serving in Asian air forces. There are also a lot of mediocre ones - I've heard stories that would make you laugh and cry - and I bet that the average level of training (and therefore discipline) among US pilots is FAR higher, if only because the US has so much more money to spend doing it.

 

[Small_Fryz]

For what littly army we have, they are apparently very good.

SAS are said to be one of the best in the world, even higher than marines.

 

[a6m5]

No offense, but I've actually met guys whose job it is to train military pilots for some of the countries and areas you've mentioned. I'm still betting the whole ranch on the US air superiority, and I'm confident that's a safe bet.

There are, of course, some excellent pilots serving in Asian air forces. There are also a lot of mediocre ones - I've heard stories that would make you laugh and cry - and I bet that the average level of training (and therefore discipline) among US pilots is FAR higher, if only because the US has so much more money to spend doing it.

No, I agree 100%. There are Asian pilots who are exceptional, even by American standards. But by average, I'm sure the level of American pilots are WAY higher. Do keep in mind though, in the scenario me and Zardoz has been discussing, while those East Asian pilots will be coming in from the Pacific, there will be much larger number of more skilled pilots coming in from the Atlantic.

Small_Fryz: I too did hear that Australian troops are highly capable. Also, Brits might have SAS, but don't forget the Green Berets

 

[Small_Fryz]

Yes, Australian Special Forces (SAS?) are apparently very good 👍

Its very interesting debate, but i think ultimatly Rest of the World will win. In the end we will have the numbers and the resources (metal etc) as well as the scientics.

Very hard to pick a winner but i belive the Rest of the world will win.

 

[a6m5]

Yes, Australian Special Forces (SAS?) are apparently very good 👍

I thought you were talking about Special Air Service. You know, the British SAS. Do Australia have a similar special force?

 

[Kent]

Maybe I'm a different case, but I don't recall being taught that Russians were bad - the underlying theme of my formative years is that Communism is bad, and I believe that to this day. As long as I can remember I've harbored no ill will against the Russian people in general. Now, against the Soviets, in other words the totalitarian Commmunist imperialists, I have an intense dislike. But in general I've always considered the average Russian to be a victim of his own government.

Very, very well said.

Also, regarding this war thing...

Fantasy land is a nice place, can I get a ticket to go?

For real though... Think about what really happens in war.
Do you think all the nations of the world would unite and not turn on each other in the name of going with the side they feared or predicted to be the winners?

I garuntee you there would be atleast a few nations out there who would weigh the losses taken in a war against the U.S. (win or lose) against the possible gains and decide to get the best of both worlds by siding with the U.S.

Furthermore, regarding military capabilities and whatnot...
Remember this:
It's not just having the equipment or the men, it's being able to use them that counts.

In the first gulf war Saddam put forth a size-able army of various parts (artillery, tanks, ground forces, french Mirage Fighters and Soviet Migs), but in the end, not a single one of those elements could match the American training and disipline.

Same goes for much of the world's air forces... Outside of a select few nations there are few who could actually use their "toys" as well as they could be used... And that's not mentioning the idea of actually keeping them in the air.
(:cough: iran's f-14s )

Just something to think about there...
It's not the size or the equipment all the time... It's the men who do the actual work behind that stuff that matters. 👍

Why do you think the Germans did so damn well with their efforts in WW2?
Sure they lost but damn they put a hurting on the world.

We all had to pull together to win that and with that in mind...
Long live the WW2 generation!
It truely was the finest hour for us all.

And with that I am headed off to bed.

As much as I would love to sit here and rant on about the capabilities of American military technology, I just don't have it in me right now... Plus, I couldn't really do that without including the Brits and the Aussies.

I'm happy to say that I do think the British and the Austraillians would stand on America's side in a WW.
I mean, just look at the alternative!
Do you really want to become partners with Communist and Crazy religous fundamentalist?

 

[Solid Fro]

Same goes for much of the world's air forces... Outside of a select few nations there are few who could actually use their "toys" as well as they could be used... And that's not mentioning the idea of actually keeping them in the air.
(:cough: iran's f-14s )

I saw a show about the F-14 on The History Channel and they mentioned the F-14s that were demonstrated and sold to Iran just before their government tuned against the US.

I wonder if they are still sitting in a hanger somewhere in the deserts of Iran?

 

[Blake]

Like it or not, but I do think the British and the Austraillians would stand on America's side in a WW.

Oh, definatly, in a real war the Australians and Brits would be on the same side as the yanks. No question.

As to that Australian troops thing, we are pretty awesome. In WW2, untrained Aussies with WW1 era weapons defeated battle hardened Japanese troops, who hadn’t been defeated by anyone before that. Pretty awesome effort I think.

Blake

 

[a6m5]

I don't know about the "battle hardened" Japanese troops. They didn't have much to eat. And as far as I can tell, Japanese Imperial Army's weapons were joke.

As for the countries fighting on the U.S. side in case of World War, that's not what we were talking about. Zardoz posted that U.S. could win a war against the rest of the world, I said I don't think so, and we were just having a friendly discussion about it.

If the U.S. did go into a World War, UK/NATO, Japan, Israel, etc. are automatic allies. In most cases, Australia and South Korea would join in also. However, they are not interested in protecting Taiwan from China, even if the U.S. get involved. 👎

 

[Zardoz]

Well, in East Asia alone(not even counting India, Pakistan, S.E. Asia), there are thousands of military planes(China alone has over 3000). I don't even know how many there are in Middle East, Europe, Australia and the rest of America, but I'm sure it's a lot more.

Yes, carrier battle groups are the most feared in the world, but in the scenario of countless subs, ships and jets attacking the group, attackers will wear them out. This wouldn't happen in real wars, but we are talking about everybody against the U.S. here. Russia(and it's ex-Soviets) will be active in both the Atlantic and Pacific. In the Atlantic, it will be the NATO and the Russians. In the Pacific, there are three decent navies. China, Russia and Japan. Don't knock the countries that I didn't mention. I'm sure when they join their forces, they'll keep an entire U.S. Navy fleet very busy.

Well...:

The U.S. Navy:

Scroll through the whole thing

Our tax dollars at work...


Total submarine count, worldwide:

A massive U.S. sub fleet, with little competition


Only the Brits are capable of inflicting any significant damage on U.S. naval forces. The Royal Navy:

A formidable force, but hopelessly outnumbered by the U.S. juggernaut


The Russian Navy is virtually out of business:

Decommissioning, dismantling, and plagued by a lack of funds

...economic problems and safety concerns in the aftermath of the sinking of the Kursk SSGN in August 2000 have lead to a large decrease in the number of submarines on patrol. For instance, in 1991 there were 55 submarine patrols but this fell to two patrols in 2001. In 2002, according to US naval intelligence, no SSBN went out on patrol.

From "Jane's Fighting Ships" :

The Russian surface fleet is in poorer shape than its submarine counterpart. On initial inspection its inventory appears impressive, comprising nearly 80 major warships including one aircraft carrier; 160 minor combatants; 24 amphibious ships and 70 mine countermeasure vessels. Very few of these warships, however, are combat-ready. The carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, for example, has rarely put to sea in recent years and its air group has only minimal experience in deck operations. The rest of the surface fleet shares a similar fate and many hulls are slowly rotting in port. Recent intelligence sources have estimated that the navy's current operational total readiness might be as low as 10%.


The French Navy:

One aircraft carrier and a bare handful of subs

The German Navy:

Basically a glorified Coast Guard

Proportionately, the cuts imposed on the navy in response to the improved security situation in Europe have been the greatest among the three services. The ship inventory will be reduced to nearly half by the year 2005. The future German fleet will consist of about ninety vessels, including fifteen frigates, eight submarines, fifteen corvette patrol vessels, and twenty mine countermeasure ships. Personnel strength will decline to about 27,000 by 2000.


The Chinese Navy:

No carriers, just six nuke subs, and a few fairly advanced frigates

Basically, they're preparing for the coming invasion of Taiwan.



AIR POWER


U.S. Air Force:

A thoroughly professional fighting force of unimaginable destructive power

Operational "Wings" of the USAF


The Russian Air Force:

Impressive-looking inventory numbers, until you underwstand the sad reality...

Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours.

In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. This reinforced the moribund situation vis-а-vis aircraft and equipment. The flying hours for 2000 averaged 20 hours for the 37th Air Army, 20 hours for Frontal Aviation and approximately 44 hours for the 61st Air Army. According to Major General Dimitry Morozov, in 2000 less than 5,000 aircraft were `serviceable' (capable of being maintained and repaired), with operational strength at approximately 4,000 aircraft and helicopters.

Of all serviceable aircraft, about 35 per cent are actually used, the rest being idled to save on airframe, engine and equipment stress. Only 20 per cent of the air force is said to be 'modern'. Problems are so serious that this once formidable air force is believed to be incapable of dealing with two large-scale strategic missions simultaneously.

The outlook is particularly bleak for Frontal Aviation, where only 54 per cent of the front-line fleet is serviceable, and the 61st Air Army (the transport fleet) where 50 per cent of the fleet is serviceable. The lack of flying hours and maintenance may explain the air force's deteriorating safety record. In the first six months of 2000, accident rates increased threefold from the first six months of 1999. During the 1980s, the accident rate averaged one emergency every 26,000 hours. By 1999-2000 this had risen to one accident every 12,000-13,000 hours.

In addition to the funding, personnel, aircraft and maintenance crisis, the RFAF is having to cope with inadequate ground support structures. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is decrepit, and airfield lighting is operating in `emergency conditions' in 40 per cent of cases. Combined with the poor training of many pilots and ground crews, the lack of spare parts and the often erratic performance of ground-control systems, the state of the air force has been seriously degraded.

The Royal Air Force:

Once again, a quality force that would face overwhelming numbers from the U.S. carriers

The French Air Force:

About 150 modern interceptors

The Chinese Air Force:

Lots of harmless old planes

Their words, not mine:

Although the PLA (People's Liberation Army) Air Force is still generally regarded as obsolete compared to Western air forces, it has already made some impressive progress in the past decade. As the PLA is transforming itself from an obsolete giant to a smaller, but more capable and modernised force ready to fight a local war under high-tech conditions, the PLA Air Force is expected to play a more important role in the future of warfare.


And finally, this guy also fantasizes about this:

E.U. versus U.S.

 

[Solid Fro]

Excellent links, Zardoz.

I can sleep well at night knowing that a single F/A-22 can fight off eight F-15 Eagles and destroy them all without the other pilots ever seeing the Raptor. No Russian counterpart can come close to the Raptor.

 

[a6m5]

Are you really gonna make me read all that? I haven't read them yet, but I just want to say that I am aware of the sad state many of the weapons are in, in some of the countries. Also, poorer countries are even lacking fund to train their pilots. I'm pretty sure, it's not anything I didn't know before. However, you do realize that if a World War had started and you're part of it, things start to change. Do you remember the American military before the World War II? Things changed very quickly. Before Pearl Harbor, American military didn't have jack, as far as weapons go. They didn't possess the type of weapons Germans were producing, let alone Japanese(just Japanese ship and planes, army's always sucked ). If the "world" started mobilizing for a war, just imagine how much manpower they are going to have. Military Draft on a global scale? First, they will fight with what they have. Unflyable planes will be flying in no time. New planes will follow in no time. Ships? With Russians, Chinese, Koreas and Japan joining forces, they'll come along very quickly. They have the knowhow.

In a crazy scenario such as this, it's almost impossible to accurately forecast the World vs. the U.S. war. While I do belive it's a war U.S. can't win, again, I'm not going to say that I'm right or you're wrong. I think we both made our cases, and we have to agree to disagree.

Edit:
Wow. Some of those links were very interesting, Zardoz. 👍 U.S. Navy runs almost half the subs in the world! That is incredible(they left out the Japanese fleet though ). I think I'm little less scared of China, now. Yessssssss!

 

[K_Speed]

I stand by my statement. We are the most powerful nation in the history of man, and that is why people can't stand us (they also can't stand us because we know it).

No thats not the problem.

More the fact that america is invading any countries they want to and making use of their strength for so called "peace making" reasons. And they expect us to go with them and agree and if we dont we are cowards (oh yeah I remember being called a coward).

Still didnt find those WMDs did you? "Oh well lets go make peace then."

But I think most americans now realize that theyve made a mistake, but of course it wont be said. thats us humans.

Yes americans do control space, thats one of the things they should be proud of, not their controlling the world tour.

 

[Diego440]

There are side issues that no one has counted in, in case such a war were to happen. How did the Allies beat the Nazis? One very important factor was supplies. They cut down the bridges and railroads, and that dried up their wells, so to speak. If the US were to enter this war, the first step enemies should take is cut up their oil supplies. That means going to the Arabs (who could be an enemy) and to South America (where they aren't very liked now).

The US is isolated by land. They can only go North or South. Canada would not support a war by the US against the rest of the world, so there's one enemy on the North and although Mexico probably would support the US, it's a 3rd world country by US standards, with less than 10% of their military power.

Once the "rest of the world" cut up the US's supplies, they're screwed.

 

[ledhed]

While there is no doubt the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, if there was a World War between the U.S. against "every other nations", I think the U.S. will lose. I mean, think about it. China, (rest of)NATO, Russia, and tens of other smaller, but formidable militaries. China has the numbers, Russia and NATO has the ships, planes and some of the best troops in the world.

If it was the U.S. + the Allies(NATO, Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) against the rest of the world, I'd say they will most likely win.

If the nukes were used, then everybody loses.

If you combine all the other of the Navys in the world , you still are no match for even one carrier task force . How do you move or supply troops ? The fact is as stupid as it sounds the world would lose in a conventional war , its stupid because no one nation in this " global " economy could afford to be at war with any major power..not to mention more than one , there is more than one way to fight a war , without resources and a strong econonomy you lose .

There are side issues that no one has counted in, in case such a war were to happen. How did the Allies beat the Nazis? One very important factor was supplies. They cut down the bridges and railroads, and that dried up their wells, so to speak. If the US were to enter this war, the first step enemies should take is cut up their oil supplies. That means going to the Arabs (who could be an enemy) and to South America (where they aren't very liked now).

In case of war the US has more than enough of its own oil to last until it can take what it needs from the middle East and elsewhere . The US has most major resourses right under its own soil , its one of the major reasons its been a global super power to begin with . As in WW2 the minor countrys and the Border countrys would submit to trade demands and movement and base rights to avoid being destroyed or invaded . If not a few fuel air bombs over a major city would convince them fast .

 

[Duke]

This is an interesting branch of Diego440's other thread, so I split it off into its own thread.

 

[///M-Spec]

In light of the main topic having been put to bed, there's some interesting side discussions here:

Re: America being the most powerful nation in the history of mankind

A lot of you have made some interesting arguments that you can't directly compare the USA against past superpowers like the Romans. But I say you can.

Which animal is more powerful? A modern day lion, an ice age sabertooth or a T-Rex? Even though none of these creatures existed in each other's time frames, there is no question a T-Rex would swallow the other two whole and ask for seconds.

Put in proper historical contexts, each animal was a top predator with no peer. But in absolute terms, Dino rules.

Let me offer another analogy. Which supercar is the fastest? The M-B 300SL Gullwing, the Ferrari Daytona, the McLaren F1 or the Bugatti Veyron? They are each the fastest production cars of their day, but in absolute terms, there can be no question the Veyron is the fastest.

You can say, "well the Gullwing was the Veyron of the 50s". Except we're not living in the 50s. It's half a century later and there are much, much faster cars. My competely pedestrian BMW 330i would make a 300SL sweat to beat me in a top speed run. That's progress.

Re: America vs. the entire fricken world (did somebody say "la-ser"?)

Wargames are amusing. It's a ridiculous premise, but I feel compelled to put my 2 cents in Despite my somewhat perverse pride of our military, I'd say it'd be long and bloody, with the US eventually losing over the course of 10+ years.

The problem wouldn't be America's military defending against the onslaught of the entire world. In any single engagment, the US would win. The problem would be actually taking the fight to other countries.

Let's say we all suddenly turn into the great satanic warmongers our worst enemies say we are tommarrow. It wouldn't take long to blockade Canada and Mexico, pummel both countries with air assets and occupy them.

The problem is: what do you do after that? Any additional advance would require massive, massive manpower and I simply don't think the US has it. Or ever will.

Sure, the US Navy can sink anything it wants to in the Pacific and Atlantic. But actually putting people in Europe, the Pacific Rim while holding onto Canada and Mexico at the same time? Sorry... not gonna happen. I think we have the world's finest military, but no one is going to fight and win on so many simultaneous fronts.

Add time to this equation and it wouldn't take TOO long for the world to share technology, ramp up into war production and simply out produce the US. Given the big head start, the US would probably make great strides in the early days, but it wouldn't be able to hold onto much outside North America. After a few years, the US would simply be overwhelmed.

Now, if you're talking about a totally defensive war, with the US simply holding off the entire world while it tried to invade American soil... that's another story. But it would still eventually lose.

EDIT: Mod's note. Since this spin-off topic has it's own thread, let's all just take a minute to remember a couple of things: 1) It's just hypothetical --don't get your underoo's in a twist over it --as it's all about as likely to happen as Cate Blanchett appearing at my front door for a coca-butter rub-down and 2) It's most definately non-serious. Keep it lighthearted and it stays open. Otherwise... click.


M

 

[Zardoz]

...Once the "rest of the world" cut up the US's supplies, they're screwed.

Well, sure. Of course that's true.

Our little no-nuke U.S.-versus-Planet Earth war game is interesting to think about (for me) because it explores the idea that the crazy Cold War buildup could possibly have brought the U.S. military machine to this point:

It could essentially destroy the air and naval capability of the entire rest of the world in a loony sci-fi-style scenario (such as some crazed, paranoid, lunatic fringe types gaining control of the White House and the entire Department of Defense) and embark upon a campaign to eliminate all potential, possible, imaginary "threats". Nobody would dare try to to use nukes because they know what that would lead to.

We're just talking about the "first phase" of this goofy scenario. Things would start going south for us paranoid Yanks shortly thereafter...

 

[Diego440]

///M-Spec So what you're saying is that in the end, the result would be the total and complete isolation of the US from the rest of the world... right?

Zardoz, of course, if we're talking war, it's not just shooting and fighting. We should take into account the tactics and experiences of other countries.

The fact is that modern day warfare is much more diabolical than what the world saw in WWII. Biological warfare and random terrorism have turned wars where only soldiers fought into a butchery where innocent people are the main target.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I agree with Mspec 👍

 

[///M-Spec]

///M-Spec So what you're saying is that in the end, the result would be the total and complete isolation of the US from the rest of the world... right?

No, I'm saying that the US would eventually lose the war because it wouldn't be able to hold onto whatever territory it picks up in the early stages. History has shown that the US is very good at decimating conventional armies. But not very good at holding and occupying territory.

Since there's been only one or two wars in the modern era that didn't involve unconditional surrender and occupation of the losing side, I'd say that's pretty much how it'd have to go down.

Celion Dion's powerful clawed forearms alone would probably eradicate an entire Army Corps while occupying the Canucks. It'd be pretty ugly.


M

 

[Famine]

A bit of trivia for you: which are the only two (proper) democracies ever to declare war on one another?

 

[Swift]

A bit of trivia for you: which are the only two (proper) democracies ever to declare war on one another?

The Union and the Confederacy in the American Civil war?

 

[a6m5]

This is fun. Great idea, Duke. I think ///M-Spec's take is the closest to mine as well. Basically, even in the full "World War" mode, United States military would be spread too thin, and eventually would get worn out. World has to just have to keep the U.S. busy, while they build and combine their strength. Like Zadoz has been saying though, The American military is ridiculously powerful. United States can certainly defend itself against the world(at least for while).

If you combine all the other of the Navys in the world , you still are no match for even one carrier task force . How do you move or supply troops ? The fact is as stupid as it sounds the world would lose in a conventional war , its stupid because no one nation in this " global " economy could afford to be at war with any major power..not to mention more than one , there is more than one way to fight a war , without resources and a strong econonomy you lose .

Carriers groups aren't invincible(I'm sure some will argue. ). NATO, Chinese, Russia, etc. do possess missiles & subs to take them out. It can be done.

It wouldn't take long to blockade Canada and Mexico, pummel both countries with air assets and occupy them.

You gotta remember how many Canadians and Hispanics there are in the U.S. Terrorism will turn the U.S. into Iraq.

EDIT: Mod's note. Since this spin-off topic has it's own thread, let's all just take a minute to remember a couple of things: 1) It's just hypothetical --don't get your underoo's in a twist over it --as it's all about as likely to happen as Cate Blanchett appearing at my front door for a coca-butter rub-down and 2) It's most definately non-serious. Keep it lighthearted and it stays open. Otherwise... click.


M

Good advice. I wanted to quote it, so people don't miss it.

 

[///M-Spec]

A bit of trivia for you: which are the only two (proper) democracies ever to declare war on one another?

I thought a (proper) democratic country has never declared war on another.

Unless you're thinking of the Confederate States of America vs. United States of America, which would technically fill your requirements.

EDIT: Ah, Swift, no doubt earning his name, beat me to it.


M

 

[DQuaN]

Yes, Australian Special Forces (SAS?) are apparently very good 👍

You must be thinking of something else. The SAS is (as mentioned above) the Special Air Service, or the Brittish special forces. Widley regarded as the best special forces in the world. (better than the SEALs)



N.B. Last comment inserted to start debate on who has the best special forces.

 

[Swift]

N.B. Last comment inserted to start debate on who has the best special forces.

The ones that we know about or the super secret ones that nobody knows about?

 

[///M-Spec]

Carriers groups aren't invincible(I'm sure some will argue. ). NATO, Chinese, Russia, etc. do possess missiles & subs to take them out. It can be done.

Carrier groups ARE invincible

But they cannot occupy territory. Neither can airplanes. Only "boots on the ground" can. And in the end, that's what it comes down to.

You gotta remember how many Canadians and Hispanics there are in the U.S. Terrorism will turn the U.S. into Iraq.

True. A little distrubing, but true.


M