who would win between the allies: US, Russia, China, Greece, Poland, France, UK, Britian, Lithuania, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Germany, Mexico, and hawaii
VS
liechtenstein, chad, and ancient rome
2007-12-28 10:51:05 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Anyside with Lichtenstein on it will win. It's always the quiet ones you have to worry about.
2007-12-31 06:42:19 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ancient Rome? Are you kidding. Back in their day they were not ones to mess with, but nothing they had then would compare to our modern war tactics.
Here are my thoughts on some of those you named though:
Chad- HA! This is probably in running as the winner of poorest country on Earth. They don't have their act together enough to fight an international war on any kind of scale.
Italy- Hasn't been a military power since.... umm... actually Ancient Rome ironically. Sure some of the city states back in the Renaissance had their shinning moments, but not as a collective country. And during WW2 it was really the Germans that held that act together, not Italy.
Liechtenstein- too small
Japan- too busy cranking out video games and Hondas.
Russia- not a contender. Sure they have a strong military history, but there are too many economic problems vexing Russia currently that would make them a real contender.
China- Everyone thinks China would be a huge player if there was some giant war because they have the largest standing army on Earth and now have a pretty decent economy. However, modern warfare is not about who has the most soldiers, it's all about who has the technological advantage. A million soldiers cost A LOT of money to provide for, move to battles, house, outfit with guns and ammunition, ect.... That is why powerful countries do not keep massive large standing armies. It's not worth it. You can have ten thousand soldiers ready and waiting in a big group, but one well aimed missle, from half a world away, can take them all out in a matter of minutes. China doesn't have technology like that, which is why China isnt' really that much of a threat.
Poland- HA!
Hawaii- Which is a US state... duh
Really, on this list the only two countries that would fight a somewhat fair match would be the US and the UK. British soldiers are better trained than ours, but we have bigger, better, and more bombs than they do. So, we would win.
2007-12-28 11:17:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The modern era would beat the past only because of technology. If it came down to hand to hand combat and old school fighting, we would lose by far, it would take less than a year.
2007-12-28 10:53:53 · answer #3 · answered by vman nash 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
US , UK, China and Russia would dominate.
2007-12-28 10:54:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is absurd....rome is ancient because...its it couldn't handle the times. How would they compete with us? With bows and arrows.
I mad at myself for entertaining stupidity.
2007-12-28 10:54:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the first choice
seeing as, um, ancient rome isn't here anymore. and US, China, and UK/Britain (they're the same thing) are major world powers.
2007-12-28 10:54:01 · answer #6 · answered by The Big Cheese 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That kind of an alliance is never going to happen, it is more likely to be all of those countries, against america.
2007-12-28 10:54:51 · answer #7 · answered by squishy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The British and Americans will own all.
2007-12-28 10:53:39 · answer #8 · answered by BrigadierBacon 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
who or do you mean in how long US and its allies would take to win??
2007-12-30 01:09:04 · answer #9 · answered by Gochiz 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if they had one i woulf kill all the people on yahoo.,
see you master bater
all i gater
j c beals you dont know but,., to only have normal animals is kinda old
2007-12-28 11:09:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋