Could the US mount an industrial effort equal the effort of WW2?

[Lancer]

By the end of WW2 we had 111 aircraft carriers, thousands of liberty ships, tanks, bombers, fighters, submarines and battleships in greater quantity than any other country. We had supplied the British, Russian, Chinese and recontituted French with various weapons and vehicles. Truly, the US was the arsenal of democracy.

Could the US do it again?

[Pekka]

I think so, but it must be simular situation..

[alva]

Seeing as The US's militairy budget is bigger then the 10 countries put together I'd say you're not that far of.

[Cruddy]

Hmm... well, the manufacturing capacity is there, but the big difference is that the weapons of today are a lot more complex to make and operate...

Which means they take longer to make, and the personnel training takes longer to do.

Probably not in the same quantity or at the same speed as the end of WW2 - but all things considered, a lot more firepower than the WW2 equivalents.

Mind you, who are you going to use it against?

[alva]

On the other, you need less weapons to achieve the same results...
Should even out, no?
-

Mind you, who are you going to use it against?

Belgium . Lucky we changed that law in time

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy

Mind you, who are you going to use it against?

Let's say Islamic terrorists detonate a nuke in a major US city, the President (whoever on that succession list survives) decides to begin the total mobilization, both to avoid an economic collapse and to carry out the total war against our enemy.

[Cruddy]

Wouldn't that result in other non-US countries mobilizing?

I'm not saying I want to see nukes in ANY city, US or not... but I don't see it as a solution to preventing a repeat.

Pulling forces out of Saudi Arabia might just do the trick.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lancer
By the end of WW2 we had 111 aircraft carriers, thousands of liberty ships, tanks, bombers, fighters, submarines and battleships in greater quantity than any other country.

It's not true. Russians always had more tanks and much more superior tanks then USA.
Have a nice day.

[Pekka]

Serb, yeah, but they were obsolete since all you need was molotovs cocktail .

In case some terrorists pulls out the nuke stunt, I can see no other results than many countries supporting the US IN combat, mobilizing fast in fear of further attacks plus other retaliations by non-friendly countries who are also paranoid. Everyone gets armed and moving fast, resulting to something we can't predict.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Serb
It's not true. Russians always had more tanks and much more superior tanks then USA.
Have a nice day.

That's funny Serb. It's true that the Russians concentraited disproportionately on tanks but in every other way the US was superior. Soviet tanks were largely based off of a pre-war American design (the Soviets continued to use the same basic American suspension design through to the 1960s) and captured war time German designs which were reverse engineered. Plus all the way to the end of 1944 the bulk of the Soviet Tank Corp was pre-war in both design and date of manufacture so you really can't say that a stock pile of older tanks is equal to much newer and more advanced models other powers were putting out.

?Add to that something like 1/4 of all Soviet military supplies can from the west and most of their bomber, fighter, submarine, and ship designs were rip offs from other powers (mostly the US/UK but a few German) and you can see that the Soviets were mostly followers and not leaders. Very good followers but certainly not on the cutting edge.

As for manufacturing output the Soviet's could never get any where near the US even with the slave labor Stalin used.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Serb

It's not true. Russians always had more tanks and much more superior tanks then USA.
Have a nice day.

It's remarkable then, how many of these "much more superior" tanks are scattered in pieces over the Middle East... or lined up as battle booty in Israel.

Good job you didn't sell them with a money back guarantee.

Mind you, WW2 Russki tanks were very good for the time - but times change.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Wouldn't that result in other non-US countries mobilizing?

I'm not saying I want to see nukes in ANY city, US or not... but I don't see it as a solution to preventing a repeat.

Pulling forces out of Saudi Arabia might just do the trick.

So you think we should just cave in and drop dead if we get nuked.

I doubt even Euro lefties are as wimpy as that.

There is only one answer to nuclear attacks: Total War and massive retaliation.

[Sandman]

No, at least not to the standard of the current American armed forces. Those gizmos are just too costly.

[JCG]

Sure it could. If some other country actually mounts any respectable (ie: not irregular, no mass surrenders, no 15-30 years old equipment) kind of conventional resistance that represents some credible threat to US lives/interests (ie: no Iraq, Iran, etc.). It'd take at least ~1 year though, if all goes well....

A lot of people would ***** about it, but that doesn't matter one bit, if the Armed Forces win.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


So you think we should just cave in and drop dead if we get nuked.

I doubt even Euro lefties are as wimpy as that.

There is only one answer to nuclear attacks: Total War and massive retaliation.

How do you retaliate against a terrorist organization which doesn't leave a return address?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Oerdin


How do you retaliate against a terrorist organization which doesn't leave a return address?

Just a few measures right out of my head:

Destroy the families of the terrorists.

Destroy the villages/towns that give them refuge.

Destroy/recolonize countries that supplied them with nukes.

Destroy/recolonize countries that harbor or support them.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


So you think we should just cave in and drop dead if we get nuked.

I doubt even Euro lefties are as wimpy as that.

There is only one answer to nuclear attacks: Total War and massive retaliation.

No, I mean pull out of Saudi Arabia before it happens.

Hanging around in someone else's Holy Lnad after the Ba'ath regime is dead is just asking for trouble.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by JCG
Sure it could. If some other country actually mounts any respectable (ie: not irregular, no mass surrenders, no 15-30 years old equipment) kind of conventional resistance that represents some credible threat to US lives/interests (ie: no Iraq, Iran, etc.). It'd take at least ~1 year though, if all goes well....

A lot of people would ***** about it, but that doesn't matter one bit, if the Armed Forces win.

The only senerio I can see that happening would be with the Chinese and not for another 20-40 years. I'd guess such a war might be set off by the Taiwan dispute, a North Korea-South Korea war, by and India vs China/Pakistan war (remember China occupies 1/4 of Kashmire which India claims belongs to it), or by China making a run for the Caspian oil fields.

Other then China I don't see how your theory could be tested. Any Islamic revolutionary force in the middle east certainly won't have tons of modern equipement and well trained soldiers. That means they won't meet two of your criteria.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Just a few measures right out of my head:

Destroy the families of the terrorists.

Destroy the villages/towns that give them refuge.

Destroy/recolonize countries that supplied them with nukes.

Destroy/recolonize countries that harbor or support them.

Anyone would think you were encouraging destruction...

What's the issue, you have shares in the defence industry or something?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy


No, I mean pull out of Saudi Arabia before it happens.

Hanging around in someone else's Holy Lnad after the Ba'ath regime is dead is just asking for trouble.

That's a misconception. Al-Qaeda will not stop until they imposed their brand of Islam upon the entire world.

But we are pulling out of SA as we speak.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Just a few measures right out of my head:

Destroy the families of the terrorists.

Destroy the villages/towns that give them refuge.

Destroy/recolonize countries that supplied them with nukes.

Destroy/recolonize countries that harbor or support them.

That would be the only way but you couldn't do such a thing in the modern world. If not Israel would have removed the Palestinians a long time ago.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Anyone would think you were encouraging destruction...

What's the issue, you have shares in the defence industry or something?

That has been our policy for the last 50 years to prevent nuclear wars: If you attack us with nukes, we will disregard any concept of human rights and annihilate your people.

It worked pretty well against the USSR.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That would be the only way but you couldn't do such a thing in the modern world. If not Israel would have removed the Palestinians a long time ago.

I only support these measures if we are attacked with nuclear weapons.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's funny Serb. It's true that the Russians concentraited disproportionately on tanks but in every other way the US was superior. Soviet tanks were largely based off of a pre-war American design (the Soviets continued to use the same basic American suspension design through to the 1960s) and captured war time German designs which were reverse engineered. Plus all the way to the end of 1944 the bulk of the Soviet Tank Corp was pre-war in both design and date of manufacture so you really can't say that a stock pile of older tanks is equal to much newer and more advanced models other powers were putting out.

?Add to that something like 1/4 of all Soviet military supplies can from the west and most of their bomber, fighter, submarine, and ship designs were rip offs from other powers (mostly the US/UK but a few German) and you can see that the Soviets were mostly followers and not leaders. Very good followers but certainly not on the cutting edge.

As for manufacturing output the Soviet's could never get any where near the US even with the slave labor Stalin used.

What a crap.
Complete bsh.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Serb

What a crap.
Complete bsh.

What is bsh?

[Ted Striker]

111 aircraft carriers, I can't even IMAGINE.

Insane

I think we could definitley do it.

[JCG]

Originally posted by Oerdin

The only senerio I can see that happening would be with the Chinese and not for another 20-40 years.

Any Islamic revolutionary force in the middle east certainly won't have tons of modern equipement and well trained soldiers. That means they won't meet two of your criteria.

It's not likely to happen in the short-medium term, of course.

But well...I don't really think the USA is going to start pumping out tanks/aircraft carriers/nukes/etc. like mad to catch bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the ayatollah in Iran, and lil' Kim, which are the current/near future threats, so such restrictive criteria does make sense, given the premise.

[Ted Striker]

We are pumping out a new breed of special forces

And all sort of robot intel gizmos that old timers like MTG love so much.

[Lancer]

Besides navy ships do we even have a shipbuilding industry in this country these days? If we don't it makes expansion very difficult...

[Ted Striker]

I recall that we have quite a substantial one. I think there's a major plant up close to where you are I thought Lancer.

I think the Japanese do too.