We'd have an army of nearly 100 million people, and over 15,000 nukes that can reach any point in the world. I think we'd be unstoppable if we wanted to conquer the world.
2007-01-10
12:55:05
·
32 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
There are only two countries whose nuclear arsenals are a threat: Russia and China. But we know where their silos are and where 90% of their nukes are.
France, England wouldn't be too opposed to a plan of uniting with us if the alternative were war, I'm sure.
As for Pakistan, India and North Korea, they all together have less than 20 nukes, and no reach.
Think about it: a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike in the Russian and Chinese silos, and they'll be open for the taking.
We could save the world if we had total control of it. As things are, we're just delaying was until everybody has thousands of nukes.
It's not as crazy as it sounds.
2007-01-10
13:03:20 ·
update #1
Might be easier than most think. Europe would do what they always do and just sit back and wait until it is too late to do anything then look for help from ???? oops there is no one to help this one. Wait a little longer before starting the action and the Muslim world will be so busy destroying themselves that soon it will be no problem there. Japan would become state 51 along with south Korea as 52.
Then there are China and India to contend with. Mostr likely both would be very pleased to have their population reduced by at leasr a third and even two thirds would be nice.
Now as for the USA, It would be about the worst thing they could do. Not that they could not do it but because where would the USA sell its arms and other defence items like fancy radar and planes that can't be seen. All the peoples could move around the world and even go to the US mainland as the want and soon there would be no USA as we know it now.
2007-01-10 13:14:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
we have a hard enough time governing our own people so taking over the world would be a hard thing to do plus why would we want to take over 3rd world nations then all those people would want running water and this and that then you know you are taking way from what we have since we put all our money in to help them that would only happen if we were able to survive the nuke war oh ya let me add in rebuilding the world back up since the nuke thing. I just don't think that is just a good idea since all the nuke waste would be in a our water which we need so much to live
2007-01-10 13:12:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ummm No, even with the draft of eligible men and women we would still most likely be short of China's military for one. Second, Yes we have more nukes. But China and Russia and a few others have plenty also, It would only take a dozen or so to pretty much ruin our country. Plus if you nuke everything, the land,water even oil is not useable. So what is the point. And as we see in Iraq, yes we can force our way in by military might and overwhelm them. But you can not then police that many people that hate you.
2007-01-10 13:03:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Briandking 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hell yeah we could but if we used our nukes there wouldn't be a world left to take over....
UNLESS!!!
Maybe we just blow everything up, then once all the radioactivity has calmed down we just start expanding
until we can change our name to United States of the World.
It's pretty catchy.
And dude 100 million people... thats a crapload.
Unless China decides to put every Chinese person into the army and swarm us with 20% of the world... but we should be able to handle it =)
2007-01-10 13:01:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by mike m 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont think so, you see there are many many other countries out there whom would unite against us, much they all united (in a sense) to tackle the axis powers who were the last people to try to take over the world.
Thats why I tell people not to fear china taking over the world. They have less nukes, but there army size more than levels that out. If they were to out of nowhere begin conquering, yes they would do considerable damage but eventually everybody, Even people who are enemies with each other, are going to unite.
As you know russia joined the allied powers in WW2. Previous the the "great war" we were enemies with Russia, then we all started getting attacked!
However it would be cool to see my country take over the world!
2007-01-10 13:09:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by coop 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
basically because China calls contained in the debt, doesn't advise we could pay. What are they gonna threaten us with? warfare? Ha! on the concern of the products, the completed "it truly is more low-priced to make it in China" is a fable now. American businesses are disillusioned about dropping company to China, so as that they have got been doing more effective artwork the a lot less, even as chinese factories are doing the option. So, it would want to be useful for the U.S. to offer up all company with China. particular, the human beings will be offended for some months, yet after that issues will go lower back to commonplace. on the concern of the tech, it truly is real that China does have some tech, in spite of the undeniable fact that it is also real that they have got no longer some thing like ours. the different u . s ., and that i advise the different u . s ., is about 20 years behind on protection rigidity tech. Our technologies is so superb, that we've extremely indestructible tanks. nicely, the in consumer-friendly words ingredient that may damage one among our tanks, is one among our tanks. Our armor can actually rigidity over an IED and pa out without even somewhat scratch. no longer in consumer-friendly words that, yet we are also construction exo-skeletons for our frontline squaddies. there is so a lot more effective tech it really is loopy ridiculous, yet i do not pick to accurate an essay. on the concern of the nukes, it would want to be no longer achieveable for nukes to attain the U.S.. attributable to our excellent engineers, we've a nationwide protection device which will hit upon any nuclear weapon and detonate it mid-flight. even more effective superb-like, no different u . s . has that technologies. sure, meaning we are the in consumer-friendly words u . s . impervious to nuclear attack. So in precis, the U.S. will win adverse to China. The warfare can make our monetary device more effective useful, even as if we win, our money owed are erased, because the Rebuplic of China might want to quit to exist. Our tech thoroughly eclipses the chinese and by no ability even nuclear warfare is a danger to us. P.S. Wait till we create an anti-be counted bomb. even more effective deadlier then a Nuke and it doesn't actually have each of the disastrous surroundings effects.
2016-12-28 16:01:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by skowronski 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's totaly point less for the reasoning that if we blew it up there isn't much left to take over but if you think that radioactive bombs just calm down in a couple of years your wrong! the radioactive stuff would be around long after a couple hundred thousand years so you'd be killing everything including your self. plus what places could you go on vacation if it's all radioactive!!! also you couldn't blow up the countries fast enough without another nuke coming your way it's impossible theres to many satelights around to not see em. we all know that every country is spying on each other it's obvious so no not at all. and there would be no gain at all!!!
2007-01-10 13:09:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As long as the world do not join forces against us, then yes we could just not all at once.
I mean why would we nuke the world and pollute are own homes. Look at the damages suffered from nuclear materials. With winds and as long as those after effects lasted, who knows the total gross amount af dammege actually caused as a direct or indirect cause of nuclear bombs.
2007-01-10 15:22:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by grnevl 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You may be correct. Nuke all the major threats, then march land attacks on the smaller countries. It's quite possible. Unrealistic though. We would suffer massive damages, and with the divisions within out nation, we wouldn't be able to hold that much under our control.
2007-01-10 13:01:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by koepnick012787 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Man you sound like a weirdo! The world would belong to anyone who could survive through a radioactive environment. I'm not sure if the good old U.S.A. would still exist with or without a 100 million person army.
2007-01-10 12:59:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Seel The Deal 1
·
0⤊
0⤋