USA vs the world, who would win - Page 24 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Wallaroo · #**346** (**permalink**) 09-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

Just out of curiosity, are you seriously arguing that Finland could hold out against a determined attack by the United States for more than 28 minutes?

The Finnish Air Force has about 60 fighter planes total. They'd last about 20 minutes in the air. Then you'd be reduced to fighting against F-22's with your turbo-prop trainer "force".

Finnish ADA isn't nearly the threat (or defense) you make it out to be.

It would take a few days, maybe a week tops, to eliminate any threat of Finnish air or ADA forces. After which the United States would enjoy complete and total air supremacy.

You've got to understand that that is the way the U.S. fights. Our Air Force is designed to go against any in the world and achieve air supremacy. I don't think any nation could prevent it, cetrainly not Finland.

Any organized military resistance would be equally futile.

The bottom line would be whether or not the people of Finland could/would organize into a grass-roots insurgency in an attempt to win a political victory (al la Iraq). Maybe you'd win that, maybe you wouldn't - but it would be the only real chance you'd have.

Anything else that can be said on the subject would be blind nationalist pride. Certainly you're entitled to it - but you can't expect it to be taken seriously by anyone with any inkiling at all of what either nation is capable of bringing to the table.

After achieving air supremacy which, as I made abundantly clear above, is absolutely inevitable, any organized attaempt at a force-on-force engagement by Finland would be crushed immediately.

Naval gunfire from American warships coupled with TLAM attacks and air cover would allow our Marines to set up any kind of perimeter they wanted.

There would be no "heavy barrages" from Finland. Maybe the one or two artillery pieces that were hidden in a barn or in heavy forrest would respond to an American advance out of devotion to duty and national pride, but they'd be reduced to ashes by a Hellfire strike from a UAV or counter-battery fire by American artillery.

The Finns wouldnt have a leg to stand on in conventional warfare against the US, but its a whole different scenario when it comes to guerilla warfare out in the woods - which it would come to.

soot · #**347** (**permalink**) 09-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

The Finns wouldnt have a leg to stand on in conventional warfare against the US, but its a whole different scenario when it comes to guerilla warfare out in the woods - which it would come to.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Which is not to say that the United States couldn't win a guerilla war in the woods of Finland. Just that we couldn't if we fought there the same way we're fighting in Iraq.

White Rabbit · #**348** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

I don't know who'd win, but I think the planet and the vast majority of humanity would be the loser here.

AdrienXII · #**349** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Which is not to say that the United States couldn't win a guerilla war in the woods of Finland. Just that we couldn't if we fought there the same way we're fighting in Iraq.

The US couldn't even get their ships in the Baltic, what with the sorry state of your mine warfare capability. I guess that pretty much ends the war right there. Well, maybe you can shoot a few cruise missiles at Finland.
But you can forget about gaining air superiority, and you can definitely forget landing troops there. That's seriously wishful thinking.

ThorHammer · #**350** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

The US couldn't even get their ships in the Baltic, what with the sorry state of your mine warfare capability. I guess that pretty much ends the war right there. Well, maybe you can shoot a few cruise missiles at Finland.
But you can forget about gaining air superiority, and you can definitely forget landing troops there. That's seriously wishful thinking.

Here we go again.

Adrien, what is with your baseless claims? Our mine warfare capability is quite wide and robust.

I thought we have shown that American air superiority would be a foregone conclusion in any war against Finland, and it would not be hard at all for us to get troops and equipment ashore.

soot · #**351** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

The US couldn't even get their ships in the Baltic, what with the sorry state of your mine warfare capability. I guess that pretty much ends the war right there. Well, maybe you can shoot a few cruise missiles at Finland.
But you can forget about gaining air superiority, and you can definitely forget landing troops there. That's seriously wishful thinking.

I'd think that if war with Finland were really a matter of necessity the United States could probably use the 3 or 4 months that it would necessarially have to spend futzing around with the UN to either develop and field mine clearance equipment, or to simply buy it elsewhere.

And if the cruise missle thing was the way it had to goI would replace your phrase "shoot a few" with "rain down incessantly". I'm sure Raytheon would be happy for the business.

We can question the means all day long. The outcome would be inevitable.

AdrienXII · #**352** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Adrien, what is with your baseless claims? Our mine warfare capability is quite wide and robust.

No it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I thought we have shown that American air superiority would be a foregone conclusion in any war against Finland, and it would not be hard at all for us to get troops and equipment ashore.

You had definitely not shown, Thorhammer. As I said, the US couldn't even get their ships in the Baltic. How are you going to gain air superiority, then, let alone bring Marine landing ships?

AdrienXII · #**353** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

I'd think that if war with Finland were really a matter of necessity the United States could probably use the 3 or 4 months that it would necessarially have to spend futzing around with the UN to either develop and field mine clearance equipment, or to simply buy it elsewhere.

And if the cruise missle thing was the way it had to goI would replace your phrase "shoot a few" with "rain down incessantly". I'm sure Raytheon would be happy for the business.

We can question the means all day long. The outcome would be inevitable.

Well, if you're going to gift the US with the ability to produce infinite amounts of cruise missiles for as long as they want, you can also assume that the EU will tell Finland where US naval assets are and will sell/give them enough cruise/antiship missiles to sink them.

erikvv · #**354** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Cant the US just invade from the Arctic Ocean? Then you can avoid the Eastsea entirely.

ThorHammer · #**355** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

No it isn't.

And what makes you think that? We currently have 2 different classes of mine warfare ships in active service, with over 20 vessels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

You had definitely not shown, Thorhammer. As I said, the US couldn't even get their ships in the Baltic. How are you going to gain air superiority, then, let alone bring Marine landing ships?

And I have pointed out that we could. What makes you think we can't? Mines?

AdrienXII · #**356** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikvv

Cant the US just invade from the arctic sea? Then you can avoid the Eastsea entirely.

Oh yeah. They can put frozen Marines in container ships and just thaw them when they unload.

ThorHammer · #**357** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikvv

Cant the US just invade from the arctic sea? Then you can avoid the Eastsea entirely.

Because we would have to cross either Russian or Norwegian territory. The scenario we are talking about is strictly a USA vs Finland (1 on 1) scenario. No other outside factors.

ThorHammer · #**358** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Oh yeah. They can put frozen Marines in container ships and just thaw them when they unload.

You really have no idea what the US military is capable of, do you?

ThorHammer · #**359** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

For your reference Adrien: Naval Mine and Anti-Submarne Warfare Command

EDIT: Correction to an earlier post. We have 18 surface vessels, and two helo squadrons. Also, modern submarines are also used to seek out and destroy mines.

AdrienXII · #**360** (**permalink**) 10-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

And what makes you think that? We currently have 2 different classes of mine warfare ships in active service, with over 20 vessels.

I read that the US Navy had seriously underfunded this capability at least until 1991, when it proved deficient. Probably it wasn't glamorous enough, compared to nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. Maybe the Navy has caught up by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

And I have pointed out that we could. What makes you think we can't? Mines?

The point was, it's easy to block the Denmark straight, and if you try to force a CVBG through it, it's toast. Mines, land-based ASMs, patrol boats, diesel subs, air strikes, not to mention old-fashioned artillery, everything could have a go at it.

View Poll Results: Who would win between the USA and the rest of the world
The USA	25	15.82%
The rest of the world	54	34.18%
Stalemate	7	4.43%
Mutually Assured Destruction	72	45.57%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode