Upload
Login or register

kanedam

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:3/11/2013
Last Login:12/06/2016
Stats
Content Ranking:#5112
Comment Ranking:#2824
Highest Content Rank:#257
Highest Comment Rank:#173
Content Thumbs: 14973 total,  16441 ,  1468
Comment Thumbs: 31973 total,  39071 ,  7098
Content Level Progress: 54.4% (272/500)
Level 210 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 211 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 88.1% (881/1000)
Level 324 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:4
Content Views:696607
Times Content Favorited:845 times
Total Comments Made:12017
FJ Points:29291
Favorite Tags: sinfest (4)

latest user's comments

#162 - please consider the numbers for a bit. consider how many s…  [+] (8 replies) 11/18/2016 on who would win? -1
User avatar
#169 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Bases, tanks, and industry wouldn't play as much of a role because most of the attacks would be on the coasts/harbors. Like I said, if the US doesn't keep Europe/Asia/Africa completely landlocked after an initial attack then it's definitely fucked and the US loses for sure. Industry would go down very quickly even in cities in the middle of the continent if there is an opening on the coast. Russia and China might be able to hit the US hard enough with what they've got to slow them down enough initially though. I'm really not sure, all the bombing anyone does nowadays only happens to cities where the people are warned to escape so we don't know exactly how much damage that could really do to populous city pumping out military equipment. I do know that you're really underestimating how quickly the US could kill a billion people without nukes.
#184 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
you didnt really look up the numbers, right?

its just not possible man. but lets assume your "landlock" paradigm is true. lets calculate it out:
you do realise most harbors can easily be used for military purposes?
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Seeh%C3%A4fen this is a list of harbors, only directly at sea, no harbors that are in rivers or such.
now count them through... and then go look up how many ships/aircraft usa has. then calculate how many can be used for each if there is supposed to be a sudden attack on all of them.
after realising it wouldnt be enough to get the job done, also consider how fast additional harbors can be constructed.

and then also again... do you think there would be no losses in the initial attack? its still a simple thing: go look up how many ships and aircraft the usa has and how much those countries have that would need to be attacked, look through how much in ratio each us ship/aircraft needs to destroy to manage the task.

it seems to me a lot of you arent really realising your situation. the usa hasnt had a single war against an industrial country EVER without the nation having been weakened by years of war already.
User avatar
#194 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Well I have no problem conceding that the US wouldn't be able to do it. If your numbers are correct and there's no unexpected thing we don't know about, then I guess the US wouldn't have a very good shot at all but the chance would still be there. Like I said, if the US ever goes on the defensive or can't manage to completely landlock the rest of the world then it's definitely fucked.
#197 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
it is in every way fucked. simple as that. please accept that fact. its really not that hard a pill to swallow to admit "no. my country could not go to war with the whole fucking rest of the world. we would lose."
User avatar
#204 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Nah, you definitely can't count out the US here, spending more on military than the next 8 countries combined while so many hippies are shouting about lowering military spending is just crazy. If we had a "ready-set-go" type of thing where it just starts right now, the rest of the world would be in panic. Assuming the best case scenario of all the world leaders being in a clear line of communication and having 1 country (probably Russia, maybe China or the UK) be made the undisputed Commander in Chief for their side just like the US would be with Canada and Mexico, where do they start? There are so many ways that this scenario could play out and the US isn't outmatched nearly enough to be counted out by any means.
#211 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
"spends as much as the next 8 countries combined"again. if you think the spending is so important (which it isnt really, since you have to look at the situation: neither of the big spenders is in a war except of america. so they budget gets used up way differently) you will still see that the usa are way outfinanced when compared to the rest of the world together.
#233 - madscrivenings (11/18/2016) [-]
First, why do you give such a damn? Not trying to rude, just wondering. Also, he's not talking that it would be easy or even really feasible; just that if in some impossible scenario the occasion occurred then the US could in a slim chance fuck everyone up before collapsing due to lack of resources and personnel. How would the entire world instantly be cooperating to destroy us and how would they be able to instantly create harbors e.t.c. TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT SAYING THE USA COULD BEAT EVERYONE, HURR DURR 'MERICA.
#235 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
i dont really give that much of a damn... while commenting this thread i cooked a meal, jerked off and browsed funny stuff. so its just something that i do by the side...
also i just got a lot of information about that because i worked for a thinktank for a while and the task i was assigned was exactly a concept paper on military strength if europe and russia were allied and if they could take on china and usa together. had to dig in a lot of information for that one...
#151 - you do realise the usa isnt such a powerhouse regarding naval …  [+] (16 replies) 11/18/2016 on who would win? 0
User avatar
#259 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/lets-sea-the-10-biggest-navies-in-the-world/

The American Navy has tons of submarines. They're also nuclear so they stay out at sea for long ass times. We have played war games with other countries all the time and kick their asses. It's not close
#275 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
Uh... not really. The USA has not had a war agianst an industrialized country in its whole history in which it participated from the start. in every single war in which they fought against industrialized countries the enemy has had been at war for years already against other enemies.

also: if you justtake it per tonnage alright. but see it from that side: destroying just one aircraft carrier means you take out a whole lot of tonnage.
and when it comes to submarines the usa are easily outnumbered also (usa has around 75. only the next 5 countries combined have 248)
User avatar
#279 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
Know that I am not trying to argue with you over who would win. The world is too large and the oceans too vast for one nation to cover all sides.
#278 - hellbentcrusade has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#277 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
Do you know what war games are?
User avatar
#159 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
This war completely relies on the US leading an initial attack with enough force to cripple the rest of the world enough to where the US would just have to run cleanup duty in the 2nd half. The resources aren't even an issue because if the US's initial attack doesn't do enough damage to put the rest of the world on permanent landlocked defense, then they're fucked. The US has plenty of untapped resources in the Americas to make that attack possible.
#162 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
please consider the numbers for a bit.
consider how many soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, bases, industry complexes and so on the usa would have to destroy to achieve such a strike. and then look at how many soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, bases and so on the usa have.
its simply impossible except if you think the usa could easily annihilate 10-20 military bases with just one bomber. or one ship could destroy 5-10 harbours. both of course without getting damaged themself. only in such calculations would it be possible simply considering the numbers.
User avatar
#169 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Bases, tanks, and industry wouldn't play as much of a role because most of the attacks would be on the coasts/harbors. Like I said, if the US doesn't keep Europe/Asia/Africa completely landlocked after an initial attack then it's definitely fucked and the US loses for sure. Industry would go down very quickly even in cities in the middle of the continent if there is an opening on the coast. Russia and China might be able to hit the US hard enough with what they've got to slow them down enough initially though. I'm really not sure, all the bombing anyone does nowadays only happens to cities where the people are warned to escape so we don't know exactly how much damage that could really do to populous city pumping out military equipment. I do know that you're really underestimating how quickly the US could kill a billion people without nukes.
#184 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
you didnt really look up the numbers, right?

its just not possible man. but lets assume your "landlock" paradigm is true. lets calculate it out:
you do realise most harbors can easily be used for military purposes?
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Seeh%C3%A4fen this is a list of harbors, only directly at sea, no harbors that are in rivers or such.
now count them through... and then go look up how many ships/aircraft usa has. then calculate how many can be used for each if there is supposed to be a sudden attack on all of them.
after realising it wouldnt be enough to get the job done, also consider how fast additional harbors can be constructed.

and then also again... do you think there would be no losses in the initial attack? its still a simple thing: go look up how many ships and aircraft the usa has and how much those countries have that would need to be attacked, look through how much in ratio each us ship/aircraft needs to destroy to manage the task.

it seems to me a lot of you arent really realising your situation. the usa hasnt had a single war against an industrial country EVER without the nation having been weakened by years of war already.
User avatar
#194 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Well I have no problem conceding that the US wouldn't be able to do it. If your numbers are correct and there's no unexpected thing we don't know about, then I guess the US wouldn't have a very good shot at all but the chance would still be there. Like I said, if the US ever goes on the defensive or can't manage to completely landlock the rest of the world then it's definitely fucked.
#197 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
it is in every way fucked. simple as that. please accept that fact. its really not that hard a pill to swallow to admit "no. my country could not go to war with the whole fucking rest of the world. we would lose."
User avatar
#204 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Nah, you definitely can't count out the US here, spending more on military than the next 8 countries combined while so many hippies are shouting about lowering military spending is just crazy. If we had a "ready-set-go" type of thing where it just starts right now, the rest of the world would be in panic. Assuming the best case scenario of all the world leaders being in a clear line of communication and having 1 country (probably Russia, maybe China or the UK) be made the undisputed Commander in Chief for their side just like the US would be with Canada and Mexico, where do they start? There are so many ways that this scenario could play out and the US isn't outmatched nearly enough to be counted out by any means.
#211 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
"spends as much as the next 8 countries combined"again. if you think the spending is so important (which it isnt really, since you have to look at the situation: neither of the big spenders is in a war except of america. so they budget gets used up way differently) you will still see that the usa are way outfinanced when compared to the rest of the world together.
#233 - madscrivenings (11/18/2016) [-]
First, why do you give such a damn? Not trying to rude, just wondering. Also, he's not talking that it would be easy or even really feasible; just that if in some impossible scenario the occasion occurred then the US could in a slim chance fuck everyone up before collapsing due to lack of resources and personnel. How would the entire world instantly be cooperating to destroy us and how would they be able to instantly create harbors e.t.c. TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT SAYING THE USA COULD BEAT EVERYONE, HURR DURR 'MERICA.
#235 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
i dont really give that much of a damn... while commenting this thread i cooked a meal, jerked off and browsed funny stuff. so its just something that i do by the side...
also i just got a lot of information about that because i worked for a thinktank for a while and the task i was assigned was exactly a concept paper on military strength if europe and russia were allied and if they could take on china and usa together. had to dig in a lot of information for that one...
#152 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
also the supply of fuel for the whole naval force would be hard if the usa got cut of from all trade
#147 - who said anything about the fights only taking place at sea? w…  [+] (18 replies) 11/18/2016 on who would win? -1
User avatar
#148 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
In my original comment replying to you, I was talking about 2 different scenarios. I said that the US alone could fight against all other countries (canada and mexico included) if a battle only took place at sea. In the next sentence I said that that won't be the case, the US can't take on the rest of the world. In the next sentence after that, I said that the US would need to be allied with the rest of the countries on the NA continent to fight a war against the rest of the world that takes place on land and sea.
#151 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
you do realise the usa isnt such a powerhouse regarding naval power?
its good because it is strong, but its not so overwhelming strong.

the others combined have more ships, more ressources... making it much easier to track down the US convoys. They are heavily outnumbered considering the amount of submarines too, which are a great danger to the aircraft carriers as the Military itself stated (regarding their worries about the situation with the chinese since there were quite a few incidents in which chinese and russian submarines got close to us ships without being detected at all).
User avatar
#259 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/lets-sea-the-10-biggest-navies-in-the-world/

The American Navy has tons of submarines. They're also nuclear so they stay out at sea for long ass times. We have played war games with other countries all the time and kick their asses. It's not close
#275 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
Uh... not really. The USA has not had a war agianst an industrialized country in its whole history in which it participated from the start. in every single war in which they fought against industrialized countries the enemy has had been at war for years already against other enemies.

also: if you justtake it per tonnage alright. but see it from that side: destroying just one aircraft carrier means you take out a whole lot of tonnage.
and when it comes to submarines the usa are easily outnumbered also (usa has around 75. only the next 5 countries combined have 248)
User avatar
#279 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
Know that I am not trying to argue with you over who would win. The world is too large and the oceans too vast for one nation to cover all sides.
#278 - hellbentcrusade has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#277 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
Do you know what war games are?
User avatar
#159 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
This war completely relies on the US leading an initial attack with enough force to cripple the rest of the world enough to where the US would just have to run cleanup duty in the 2nd half. The resources aren't even an issue because if the US's initial attack doesn't do enough damage to put the rest of the world on permanent landlocked defense, then they're fucked. The US has plenty of untapped resources in the Americas to make that attack possible.
#162 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
please consider the numbers for a bit.
consider how many soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, bases, industry complexes and so on the usa would have to destroy to achieve such a strike. and then look at how many soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, bases and so on the usa have.
its simply impossible except if you think the usa could easily annihilate 10-20 military bases with just one bomber. or one ship could destroy 5-10 harbours. both of course without getting damaged themself. only in such calculations would it be possible simply considering the numbers.
User avatar
#169 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Bases, tanks, and industry wouldn't play as much of a role because most of the attacks would be on the coasts/harbors. Like I said, if the US doesn't keep Europe/Asia/Africa completely landlocked after an initial attack then it's definitely fucked and the US loses for sure. Industry would go down very quickly even in cities in the middle of the continent if there is an opening on the coast. Russia and China might be able to hit the US hard enough with what they've got to slow them down enough initially though. I'm really not sure, all the bombing anyone does nowadays only happens to cities where the people are warned to escape so we don't know exactly how much damage that could really do to populous city pumping out military equipment. I do know that you're really underestimating how quickly the US could kill a billion people without nukes.
#184 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
you didnt really look up the numbers, right?

its just not possible man. but lets assume your "landlock" paradigm is true. lets calculate it out:
you do realise most harbors can easily be used for military purposes?
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Seeh%C3%A4fen this is a list of harbors, only directly at sea, no harbors that are in rivers or such.
now count them through... and then go look up how many ships/aircraft usa has. then calculate how many can be used for each if there is supposed to be a sudden attack on all of them.
after realising it wouldnt be enough to get the job done, also consider how fast additional harbors can be constructed.

and then also again... do you think there would be no losses in the initial attack? its still a simple thing: go look up how many ships and aircraft the usa has and how much those countries have that would need to be attacked, look through how much in ratio each us ship/aircraft needs to destroy to manage the task.

it seems to me a lot of you arent really realising your situation. the usa hasnt had a single war against an industrial country EVER without the nation having been weakened by years of war already.
User avatar
#194 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Well I have no problem conceding that the US wouldn't be able to do it. If your numbers are correct and there's no unexpected thing we don't know about, then I guess the US wouldn't have a very good shot at all but the chance would still be there. Like I said, if the US ever goes on the defensive or can't manage to completely landlock the rest of the world then it's definitely fucked.
#197 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
it is in every way fucked. simple as that. please accept that fact. its really not that hard a pill to swallow to admit "no. my country could not go to war with the whole fucking rest of the world. we would lose."
User avatar
#204 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Nah, you definitely can't count out the US here, spending more on military than the next 8 countries combined while so many hippies are shouting about lowering military spending is just crazy. If we had a "ready-set-go" type of thing where it just starts right now, the rest of the world would be in panic. Assuming the best case scenario of all the world leaders being in a clear line of communication and having 1 country (probably Russia, maybe China or the UK) be made the undisputed Commander in Chief for their side just like the US would be with Canada and Mexico, where do they start? There are so many ways that this scenario could play out and the US isn't outmatched nearly enough to be counted out by any means.
#211 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
"spends as much as the next 8 countries combined"again. if you think the spending is so important (which it isnt really, since you have to look at the situation: neither of the big spenders is in a war except of america. so they budget gets used up way differently) you will still see that the usa are way outfinanced when compared to the rest of the world together.
#233 - madscrivenings (11/18/2016) [-]
First, why do you give such a damn? Not trying to rude, just wondering. Also, he's not talking that it would be easy or even really feasible; just that if in some impossible scenario the occasion occurred then the US could in a slim chance fuck everyone up before collapsing due to lack of resources and personnel. How would the entire world instantly be cooperating to destroy us and how would they be able to instantly create harbors e.t.c. TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT SAYING THE USA COULD BEAT EVERYONE, HURR DURR 'MERICA.
#235 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
i dont really give that much of a damn... while commenting this thread i cooked a meal, jerked off and browsed funny stuff. so its just something that i do by the side...
also i just got a lot of information about that because i worked for a thinktank for a while and the task i was assigned was exactly a concept paper on military strength if europe and russia were allied and if they could take on china and usa together. had to dig in a lot of information for that one...
#152 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
also the supply of fuel for the whole naval force would be hard if the usa got cut of from all trade
#143 - it was stated that ALL countries fight against the USA. so of …  [+] (20 replies) 11/18/2016 on who would win? 0
User avatar
#146 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
If we're talking about the scenario where the fights only take place at sea, how is the US going to conquer new territory?
#147 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
who said anything about the fights only taking place at sea? why should the other countries ignore the advantage of attacking usa from all four sides and to try bombing their coastal industry and cities?
User avatar
#148 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
In my original comment replying to you, I was talking about 2 different scenarios. I said that the US alone could fight against all other countries (canada and mexico included) if a battle only took place at sea. In the next sentence I said that that won't be the case, the US can't take on the rest of the world. In the next sentence after that, I said that the US would need to be allied with the rest of the countries on the NA continent to fight a war against the rest of the world that takes place on land and sea.
#151 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
you do realise the usa isnt such a powerhouse regarding naval power?
its good because it is strong, but its not so overwhelming strong.

the others combined have more ships, more ressources... making it much easier to track down the US convoys. They are heavily outnumbered considering the amount of submarines too, which are a great danger to the aircraft carriers as the Military itself stated (regarding their worries about the situation with the chinese since there were quite a few incidents in which chinese and russian submarines got close to us ships without being detected at all).
User avatar
#259 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/lets-sea-the-10-biggest-navies-in-the-world/

The American Navy has tons of submarines. They're also nuclear so they stay out at sea for long ass times. We have played war games with other countries all the time and kick their asses. It's not close
#275 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
Uh... not really. The USA has not had a war agianst an industrialized country in its whole history in which it participated from the start. in every single war in which they fought against industrialized countries the enemy has had been at war for years already against other enemies.

also: if you justtake it per tonnage alright. but see it from that side: destroying just one aircraft carrier means you take out a whole lot of tonnage.
and when it comes to submarines the usa are easily outnumbered also (usa has around 75. only the next 5 countries combined have 248)
User avatar
#279 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
Know that I am not trying to argue with you over who would win. The world is too large and the oceans too vast for one nation to cover all sides.
#278 - hellbentcrusade has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#277 - hellbentcrusade (11/18/2016) [-]
Do you know what war games are?
User avatar
#159 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
This war completely relies on the US leading an initial attack with enough force to cripple the rest of the world enough to where the US would just have to run cleanup duty in the 2nd half. The resources aren't even an issue because if the US's initial attack doesn't do enough damage to put the rest of the world on permanent landlocked defense, then they're fucked. The US has plenty of untapped resources in the Americas to make that attack possible.
#162 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
please consider the numbers for a bit.
consider how many soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, bases, industry complexes and so on the usa would have to destroy to achieve such a strike. and then look at how many soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, bases and so on the usa have.
its simply impossible except if you think the usa could easily annihilate 10-20 military bases with just one bomber. or one ship could destroy 5-10 harbours. both of course without getting damaged themself. only in such calculations would it be possible simply considering the numbers.
User avatar
#169 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Bases, tanks, and industry wouldn't play as much of a role because most of the attacks would be on the coasts/harbors. Like I said, if the US doesn't keep Europe/Asia/Africa completely landlocked after an initial attack then it's definitely fucked and the US loses for sure. Industry would go down very quickly even in cities in the middle of the continent if there is an opening on the coast. Russia and China might be able to hit the US hard enough with what they've got to slow them down enough initially though. I'm really not sure, all the bombing anyone does nowadays only happens to cities where the people are warned to escape so we don't know exactly how much damage that could really do to populous city pumping out military equipment. I do know that you're really underestimating how quickly the US could kill a billion people without nukes.
#184 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
you didnt really look up the numbers, right?

its just not possible man. but lets assume your "landlock" paradigm is true. lets calculate it out:
you do realise most harbors can easily be used for military purposes?
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Seeh%C3%A4fen this is a list of harbors, only directly at sea, no harbors that are in rivers or such.
now count them through... and then go look up how many ships/aircraft usa has. then calculate how many can be used for each if there is supposed to be a sudden attack on all of them.
after realising it wouldnt be enough to get the job done, also consider how fast additional harbors can be constructed.

and then also again... do you think there would be no losses in the initial attack? its still a simple thing: go look up how many ships and aircraft the usa has and how much those countries have that would need to be attacked, look through how much in ratio each us ship/aircraft needs to destroy to manage the task.

it seems to me a lot of you arent really realising your situation. the usa hasnt had a single war against an industrial country EVER without the nation having been weakened by years of war already.
User avatar
#194 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Well I have no problem conceding that the US wouldn't be able to do it. If your numbers are correct and there's no unexpected thing we don't know about, then I guess the US wouldn't have a very good shot at all but the chance would still be there. Like I said, if the US ever goes on the defensive or can't manage to completely landlock the rest of the world then it's definitely fucked.
#197 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
it is in every way fucked. simple as that. please accept that fact. its really not that hard a pill to swallow to admit "no. my country could not go to war with the whole fucking rest of the world. we would lose."
User avatar
#204 - toosexyforyou (11/18/2016) [-]
Nah, you definitely can't count out the US here, spending more on military than the next 8 countries combined while so many hippies are shouting about lowering military spending is just crazy. If we had a "ready-set-go" type of thing where it just starts right now, the rest of the world would be in panic. Assuming the best case scenario of all the world leaders being in a clear line of communication and having 1 country (probably Russia, maybe China or the UK) be made the undisputed Commander in Chief for their side just like the US would be with Canada and Mexico, where do they start? There are so many ways that this scenario could play out and the US isn't outmatched nearly enough to be counted out by any means.
#211 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
"spends as much as the next 8 countries combined"again. if you think the spending is so important (which it isnt really, since you have to look at the situation: neither of the big spenders is in a war except of america. so they budget gets used up way differently) you will still see that the usa are way outfinanced when compared to the rest of the world together.
#233 - madscrivenings (11/18/2016) [-]
First, why do you give such a damn? Not trying to rude, just wondering. Also, he's not talking that it would be easy or even really feasible; just that if in some impossible scenario the occasion occurred then the US could in a slim chance fuck everyone up before collapsing due to lack of resources and personnel. How would the entire world instantly be cooperating to destroy us and how would they be able to instantly create harbors e.t.c. TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT SAYING THE USA COULD BEAT EVERYONE, HURR DURR 'MERICA.
#235 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
i dont really give that much of a damn... while commenting this thread i cooked a meal, jerked off and browsed funny stuff. so its just something that i do by the side...
also i just got a lot of information about that because i worked for a thinktank for a while and the task i was assigned was exactly a concept paper on military strength if europe and russia were allied and if they could take on china and usa together. had to dig in a lot of information for that one...
#152 - kanedam (11/18/2016) [-]
also the supply of fuel for the whole naval force would be hard if the usa got cut of from all trade