Real World

With 1 transmission to our sub fleets, the US can turn all other countries into parking lots in a matter of minutes. Yah we would kill the planet and ourselves in the process, but we would be winners for a short period of time. Not to mention domination in every other aspect of Civ except population.

/thread

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
 
BLOODYBATTLEBRA said:
Acutally I think the US could conquer teh world. If it decided to dominate, and exterminated the populations of host countries. they have the firepower, technology, money and more than enough men to do it, IF they decided to be conquerors, like the Mongols, instead of 'regime changers'...

Sure they'd be loads of ground roots resistance, but as the US could monopolise satellite technology, and probably freeze the internet too, these annoyances would remain at ground level. The better organised might even ahve radios, but the US is more than capable of occupying the areas it wants, and elaching the resources, if it so chose.

Oh now come on, let's get real here. They are struggling enough to counter the resistance that's in Iraq, and that's with the help of us Brits. And that's not even considering how they would go about attacking a country as big as Russia, China or India. You need a rather large manpower to subdue a country of 1.1 billion like India.

The internet is not important in terms of revolts and revolutions. do you think that's what the 'insurgents in Iraq are using? These things happened before radio was invented, let alone a global satellite network. Controlling technology does not control the population.
 
Zombie69 said:
Indeed they did yesterday. I'm no longer proud to be Canadian... :(

The Liberals need a serious kick in their axx, and Martin needs to be finished off, even I still agree with their underlying principles. A minority government is currently the best option. Harper will show his true color and the bubble of those Canadian version of neo-cons will burst pretty soon any way.

BLOODYBATTLEBRA said:
Acutally I think the US could conquer teh world. If it decided to dominate, and exterminated the populations of host countries. they have the firepower, technology, money and more than enough men to do it, IF they decided to be conquerors, like the Mongols, instead of 'regime changers'...

No disrepect for the US, but if they want a land war, one disorganized Iraq almost drained them, not to speak of fighting a world war. If they want a nuclear war, the combined nuclear arsenal of Russia and China can probably destroy this planet 3 times. The missile defence of the US is still a joke. There won't be any winner at the end.

If the real world is like a game, the winner at 2050 will still be the US, but by score victory only. At that point China will likely still be a bit behind. A spaceship to Alpha Centauri more than likely exists only in StarTrek. The world will be divided into 5 major forces (US, EU, China, Russia, India) and I don't see a diplomatic win. Culture win? The game assume there is one universal form of culture. In reality the US culture, European culture and Oriental culture are compatible only up to certain point. My Chinese friends live in Canada for almost 30 years and still resist to go to McDonald, still watch Hong Kong TV and movies and listen to songs sung by Chinese, and still celebrate Chinese New Year. The so called Broadway culture, Hollywood culture, Rock-N-roll culture are only an interesting alternative. It's not like the old time anymore.
 
BLOODYBATTLEBRA said:
Acutally I think the US could conquer teh world. If it decided to dominate, and exterminated the populations of host countries. they have the firepower, technology, money and more than enough men to do it, IF they decided to be conquerors, like the Mongols, instead of 'regime changers'...

-snip-

Umm... I don't think so. All other considerations of logistics, manpower, and the the nuclear powers exchanging nukes with the US aside (unfortunately SDI defense in real life isn't quite up to par with CIV game mechanics ;) )... after having declared war on the rest of the world, where exactly do you think America is going to get all that oil to power that enormous war machine of theirs? :p
 
BLOODYBATTLEBRA said:
Acutally I think the US could conquer teh world. If it decided to dominate, and exterminated the populations of host countries. they have the firepower, technology, money and more than enough men to do it, IF they decided to be conquerors, like the Mongols, instead of 'regime changers'...

Sure they'd be loads of ground roots resistance, but as the US could monopolise satellite technology, and probably freeze the internet too, these annoyances would remain at ground level. The better organised might even ahve radios, but the US is more than capable of occupying the areas it wants, and elaching the resources, if it so chose.


And what if the US adopted mercantilism??? Hah, that'd be a huge economic F*ck you to the rest of the world....

My only criticisms are that the US says one thing and does another, or just plain out lies (Iraq was under false pretences, i.e. lies, regardless of what greater good may come out of that) but then again, we Brits do that to, and so does everyone else infact.


Just that, we;'re not claiming to be the bastion of freedom or whatever.We're honest liars!!

you forget that america has one of the poorest trained armies among western nations doesn't all the blue on blue firing show thatand if they declared war on any european nation EVERY country in the Europe Union would respond
 
Percinho said:
Oh now come on, let's get real here. They are struggling enough to counter the resistance that's in Iraq, and that's with the help of us Brits. And that's not even considering how they would go about attacking a country as big as Russia, China or India. You need a rather large manpower to subdue a country of 1.1 billion like India.

The internet is not important in terms of revolts and revolutions. do you think that's what the 'insurgents in Iraq are using? These things happened before radio was invented, let alone a global satellite network. Controlling technology does not control the population.

You misunderstand him, he meant that the US has the capability to wipe out all other nations and there inhabitants by nuclear war. The fallout and all other negative effects in US would not kill more than 50% of the population - all others 0, US 100-150 million, US won.

That only works if they avoid the retaliation from china and russia. China is rather easy afaik, as their space program is not yet fully running, so they have no early missle warning system. Also they do not have many nukes and subs with nukes, spying could yield their position. Therefore the US could hit them so hard, they have nothing left to fire back.

Russia is more diffcult, they have enough nukes in subs to decimate US pop to 0, and they have so many, getting all their positions is impossible. Also they have an early missle warning system, so their land based nukes would get off a few shots, before US nukes destroy them. The only chance would be an infiltration of the russian missle command, so that it can be disabled for 1 hour and all subs can be found, before they realize what is going on - only slim chance of success.

Russia + US making permanent alliance could win reliable and fast.


And having no oil is a problem, being back in middle ages till gulf region has acceptable radiation levels, is still a victory, if everyone else is gone.

Carn
 
ROFL

It's funny how a fun question can get turned into a serious debate on this damn board.

As a side note, Europe isnt a fair answer. There are many countries in Europe. I would have to say the race is between Japan, China, and a coupleothers in Europe... I believe Italy and Germany. I would say France but I think the others have a tech lead on them if I am not mistaken. but China has the land mass to aid with its techs. I would say russia would be at the top but I dont fully undrstand whats up over there yet. :p

EDIT: America couldn't take over the world. All the other countries hate us too much to let us even get in position. And Britain would have pacts signed so fast they would be effective yesterday. Also, you gotta cross off technology there. We may be up to par, but we are down the list on the tech lead.
 
carn said:
You misunderstand him, he meant that the US has the capability to wipe out all other nations and there inhabitants by nuclear war. The fallout and all other negative effects in US would not kill more than 50% of the population - all others 0, US 100-150 million, US won.

That only works if they avoid the retaliation from china and russia. China is rather easy afaik, as their space program is not yet fully running, so they have no early missle warning system. Also they do not have many nukes and subs with nukes, spying could yield their position. Therefore the US could hit them so hard, they have nothing left to fire back.

Russia is more diffcult, they have enough nukes in subs to decimate US pop to 0, and they have so many, getting all their positions is impossible. Also they have an early missle warning system, so their land based nukes would get off a few shots, before US nukes destroy them. The only chance would be an infiltration of the russian missle command, so that it can be disabled for 1 hour and all subs can be found, before they realize what is going on - only slim chance of success.

Russia + US making permanent alliance could win reliable and fast.


And having no oil is a problem, being back in middle ages till gulf region has acceptable radiation levels, is still a victory, if everyone else is gone.

Carn

Agreed, if that was the original point then my response can be regarded as null and void.

However, I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. I don't think the US DOES have the capability to wipe out all other life on earth (he says, venturing into the realms of the REALLY hypothetical :) ). We can choose to ignore the tiny islands as they would have a negligable population in terms of a domination victory. To take out all of Europe, South America and Africa would be trouble enough, but then you have the vastness of India and China to take into acount. Australia would alos be strangely troublessome, as the poulation is all round the outer part of the island, so you'd have to use a disproportionatly high number of nukes.

Mys suggestion would be that it'd be best to nuke Europe and Asia, then go for an invasion of South America. You should probably have enough then to go for domination victory over Africa. Easy really..... ;)

The concept of Russia and the US forming a permenant alliance was a joke right? ;)
 
Nobody can conquer the world by force. With Ideas maybe but force. You can be killed by a nuke or with a fork. The fork doesn't make you any less dead. Not to mention who is going to fight. DO you honestly picture the american population as more military ready than China, Russia hell even Cuba and Mexico. Sure they have big guns but they have limited number of people who actually know how to use them. The oposition on the other hand can arm 1 bilion people with rifles or bomb vests if they want to and march them to the US. You know the Germans killed 20 mil russians in the WW2 and still were overrun. You can bet that the bombs will be over way before the enemy is. Watch a good ant documentary for a good analogy. A sufficiant number of fearless naked savages even can beat you if their numbers are high enough. The only way for small force no matter how technologically superior to win over a much greater force is through fear. Backing people into the corner makes them fearless as they have nothing to lose. And some are just fearless anyway because of other factors. That is what makes kamikadzes and the like so dangerous. If I'm not afraid of you killing me than tha chance that I take you down with me is pretty high. FEAR is the ultimate weapon in any conflict. Spartans at the Thermopilies is a prime example of the ultimate power of fear. The russians with their handfull of nukes at the Cuban crizis held America back with its huge arsenal using nothing but fear. Never underestimate fear.
 
Zombie69 said:
Indeed they did yesterday. I'm no longer proud to be Canadian... :(

Then you should move.

Your pride in your country should not relate to which party is in power
It is a democracy :mischief: after all, and power shifts from time to time.
 
If the new prime minister doesn't go gung ho bush style it will still be pretty safe to be a canadian.;)
 
Yeah, switching power is one thing, but electing Bush junior as our Prime Minister is another.
 
Indeed they did yesterday. I'm no longer proud to be Canadian...

You should be. Canada is a damn fine country.

And regardless of Bush or Clinton, Washington or Roosevelt, Lies or Truth, The United States of America is where it's at. The quality of life is just so much better and easier to attain than anywhere else in the world.
 
me_Barb said:
If the new prime minister doesn't go gung ho bush style it will still be pretty safe to be a canadian.;)

&


Zombie69 said:
Yeah, switching power is one thing, but electing Bush junior as our Prime Minister is another.

1. Stephen Harper just got elected yesterday, he has done nothing yet positive or negative
2. Bush junior, you can't compare a nation of ~30 million to ~300 Million people and their leader which governs it, also as stated:
...shoot I just checked CBC copyrights and I can't quote them
So go here and read:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/revolution.html
3. IT IS A MINORITY, Harper can not do whatever he wants, another party, more spefically the Bloc Quebequois or the Liberals will have to vote with the Conservatives for anything to happen.
4. This is what Canada wanted: To give someone else a chance, but not enough power to get out of control and go 'gung ho bush style'
 
Why did you post a link to that article? It pretty much says all the way that this is a much bigger change than most Canadians expected, and that they'll certainly be able to pass a lot of their ideas, minority or not. It's a very, very sad day for Canada. As much as i hate to admit it, this might mean the end of Canada as we know it. Next thing you know, Quebec will separate because of the huge gap in values, and that will be the end. The Parti Québécois already has a huge lead in the polls and its new leader has already said that there will be a referendum during his first mandate.
 
Memphus said:
3. IT IS A MINORITY, Harper can not do whatever he wants, another party, more spefically the Bloc Quebequois or the Liberals will have to vote with the Conservatives for anything to happen.

There are a lot of things you can do without Parliament approval. Also, the first budget will pass no matter what, because the other partys won't dare force another election so soon.

I'm telling you now : look at how much of a drop the canadian dollar takes after the first budget is passed. And the debt will start growing again. No more surplus = accumulating debt.
 
Zombie69 said:
It's a very, very sad day for Canada. As much as i hate to admit it, this might mean the end of Canada as we know it.

Just like the US is going to hell just because one person was elected? Life goes on.
 
This also took the only good Prime Minister we've had in the last 30 years (and possibly prior) and forced him to resign from politics. Well done Canada!

Makes me sick just thinking about it.
 
Reignking said:
Just like the US is going to hell just because one person was elected? Life goes on.

Good example, because the US did go to hell. He single-handedly dropped all support the USA may have had in every other country in the world!
 
Good example, because the US did go to hell. He single-handedly dropped all support the USA may have had in every other country in the world!

But that has little to no effect on America itself, and I don't really feel we need anyones support, they need ours.
 
Back
Top Bottom