Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America's Worst Enemy in History
mongyu    1/2/2008 8:16:10 AM
The title says it all: Who do you think has been the greatest enemy ever to threaten America? My vote goes to the British hands down. No other country ever came as close as the British to physically ending the United States in our history. The Germans and the Japanese were formidable in their own right, but neither [or even both] could reasonably invade the United States. The Soviet Union had the theoretical potential to destroy the United States, but I think everyone agrees that this was not a practical capability in the way the British Empire's ability to take Washington DC was. The Soviets were a dangerous enemy ideologically in the way it could convert adherents in America, but they never out-did the British who successfully supported a rebellion in the United States by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy. So what country would you choose?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
Jeff_F_F       1/3/2008 10:00:06 AM
Radical Islam is a serious threat to Europe as we know it, but not to the US. Both areas have relatively low birth rates and nearby areas of relative poverty and high birth rates, creating a tendency for immigration from the area of high population and low wealth to the area of low population and high wealth. For Europe the source of these immigrants is Muslim, for the US the source is Catholic.
 
There is no threat that Radical Islam poses that could become an existential threat to the US faster than the US can deal with it. The only scenario that comes close requires multiple nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles on multiple cargo ships, making a coordinated EMP attack. That would require an enormous degree of coordination and the involvement of massive numbers of human assets. Pulling that off without it being noticed is quite a stretch. 9/11 slipped by due to disorganization and lack of preparation almost certainly aided by the assumption that something of that magnitude just couldn't happen. We won't make the same mistakes any time soon. Even if it could be put into effect, the US ABM system is designed with countering such a threat as part of its mission.
 
Remember, the ease of detecting a developing plan is directly proportional to the number of people who know about it. The greater the complexity of the plan and the more assets of more types that are involved, the more people who have to know about some part of it. 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/3/2008 10:36:25 AM


























Now now, we both know it was the French that really won that war ;)

B.L.












Ugh...











Outdone by the French ?  Surely you jest! 











 









it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 






One simple answer. Cowflop.

I suggest you do an economic analysis of the Earth at the time. The proto-US was at 1/4 of France's economic output and CLIMBING. If not 1783 then by 1820. Britain in NA was FINISHED.

Herald





you mean the USA rather than North America?



and what do you mean by "FINISHED"?



I mean finished in North America. Why the Great White North put up with it, is your internal political business, but if you really wanted to kick Britain out, they were out, through, period.

Herald

 
Canada was part of the British Empire back.
the US had just failed it attempting to take it by force so I don't see why you say the British were finished?
 
the British Empire was far bigger than the US and still growing itself and could have focused on the America's rather than elsewhere and have beaten the still young US to the control of the majority of the west coast.
 
it is only because Britain and the US were "friendly" after the 1812W that the US was able to expand westward with so little opposition (ie natives and Mexicans rather than French or British). and that is
 
once the US controlled the west coast then it was basically secure from any British or other foreign threat but up until 1850 the US would still have to be very worried if Britain became aggressive.
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/3/2008 10:57:11 AM


























Now now, we both know it was the French that really won that war ;)

B.L.












Ugh...











Outdone by the French ?  Surely you jest! 











 









it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 






One simple answer. Cowflop.

I suggest you do an economic analysis of the Earth at the time. The proto-US was at 1/4 of France's economic output and CLIMBING. If not 1783 then by 1820. Britain in NA was FINISHED.

Herald





you mean the USA rather than North America?



and what do you mean by "FINISHED"?



I mean finished in North America. Why the Great White North put up with it, is your internal political business, but if you really wanted to kick Britain out, they were out, through, period.

Herald

 
Canada was part of the British Empire back.
 
the US had just failed it attempting to take it by force so I don't see why you say the British were finished?
the British Empire was far bigger than the US and still growing itself and could have focused on the America's rather than elsewhere and have beaten the still young US to the control of the majority of the west coast.
 
 
it is only because Britain and the US were friendly for the majority of the time (W1812 the obvious exception) that the US was able to expand westward with so little opposition (ie natives and Mexicans rather than Spanish/French or British).
 
the British never opposed the expansion west from the original 13 colonies, which they could well have done if interested in doing so.
it didn't dispute the Lousiana purchase (which most might say wasn't Napoleon's to sell in the first place) or back Spain in wanting it back.
Britain never got involved in the ACW when it could have supported the CSA and done its standard practice of never letting one power get too strong in an area.
 
there are many times up until the late 1800s that could have turned things completely different for the US if Britain had opposed them much the same as things would have been bad for Britain in the 20thC if the US had not been our friend.
 
 
Paul

 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Thinking outside the box a bit   1/3/2008 11:37:39 AM
This threat isn't existential, but is still significant:
 
Currently Egypt is experiencing a massive outbreak of H5N1 in humans, with 16 new suspect cases reported since yesterday. It's too early to tell how many of those cases will die, but of the confirmed cases in Egypt this season 4 of 5 have died. Sequence data hasn't been released, and we don't know if any of those who died were treated with Tamiflu. Last year a sequene known as M230I which is found in human seasonal flus was aquired by H5N1 in Egypt and that strain killed all persons infected by it even when Tamiflu treatment was started early due to the additional acquisition of N294S which provides Tamiflu resistance. It isn't clear if the same strain is showing up again this year but if it is, it could be quite serious, since a lot more people are being infected than last year.
 
Globally, H5N1 kills about 2/3 of those known to be infected, and studies looking for antibodies in asymptomatic personas have suggested that asymptomatic infections are uncommon. In comparison the 1918 flu (aka Spanish Flu) killed fewer than 5% (probably more like 2%) of those infected by it, but still killed at least half a million Americans out of an aproximately 100 million population, and 50-100 million out of an aproximately 1 billion population worldwide, without the prevalance of rapid international travel that exists today.
 
The middle east has at least as great a potential to spark a pandemic as southeast asia, because the culture is nearly as vulnerable to such infection and because H9N2 bird flu can contribute genes that in combination with H5N1 make H5N1 a lot more efficient at both infecting humans and killing them. This combination occurred in Turkey during January 2005 but was fortunately able to be squashed with massive application of Tamiflu.
 
The a hopeful sign is that unlike most H5N1 outbreaks where the disease is found in family clusters, usually with about a week gap in onset dates between the first person infected and the other family members infected, which suggests human to human infection, most of the cases in Egypt so far have been single cases. So it may be that this strain transmits from bird to human more easily than previous strains, but is harder to transmit between human close contacts.
 
Fortunately the Hajj has already occurred this year, so that is one additional risk factor we don't have to worry about right now. Although international disease control agencies carefully monitor the Hajj, the simple fact is that it would be difficult to create a better way to diseminate a pandemic globally if one tried to design it. In 2005 the Hajj took place in January. Russia went so far as to fly all participants from their nation home to prevent the possibility of pilgrims traveling through Turkey and picking something up, and probably to give their medical personnel a chance to evaluate returning pilgrims before they returned to their communities as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/3/2008 12:34:55 PM

     ......and yet american history hardly mentions them.<Ehran
 

They teach it just fine Ehran. It's in the history books and has been since it happened.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky




pull a hundred random americans off the street and find out what their understanding of the importance of the french aid was then come back and try to tell me that with a straight face rocky. 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/3/2008 12:40:59 PM
it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 




One simple answer. Cowflop.

I suggest you do an economic analysis of the Earth at the time. The proto-US was at 1/4 of France's economic output and CLIMBING. If not 1783 then by 1820. Britain in NA was FINISHED.

Herald


the american colonies were doing quite well and per capita were actually richer than the british themselves.  i would suggest this wasn't going to be all that helpful to the revolutionaries though because most of that wealth was under british control especially during the early part of the war.  look to where the stands of muskets came from along with much of the powder and shot that equipped the continental army.  where did the cannon come from by and large?  the gold to pay the continental army?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    You are the one making the accusation, let me know your results, Post them here with a academic paper please.   1/3/2008 1:01:29 PM




     ......and yet american history hardly mentions them.<Ehran

 



They teach it just fine Ehran. It's in the history books and has been since it happened.



 



Check Six



 



Rocky







pull a hundred random americans off the street and find out what their understanding of the importance of the french aid was then come back and try to tell me that with a straight face rocky. 



 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/3/2008 1:02:41 PM

































Now now, we both know it was the French that really won that war ;)

B.L.














Ugh...













Outdone by the French ?  Surely you jest! 













 











it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 







One simple answer. Cowflop.

I suggest you do an economic analysis of the Earth at the time. The proto-US was at 1/4 of France's economic output and CLIMBING. If not 1783 then by 1820. Britain in NA was FINISHED.

Herald







you mean the USA rather than North America?





and what do you mean by "FINISHED"?





I mean finished in North America. Why the Great White North put up with it, is your internal political business, but if you really wanted to kick Britain out, they were out, through, period.

Herald


 

Canada was part of the British Empire back.

So what? 

the US had just failed it attempting to take it by force so I don't see why you say the British were finished?

Did you actually bother to read the campaign histories? T'was American bungling and logistics incompetence that saved the British. They were on the ropes  and escaped by the skin of their teeth.

the British Empire was far bigger than the US and still growing itself and could have focused on the America's rather than elsewhere and have beaten the still young US to the control of the majority of the west coast.

Napoleon and the Russians were in the way. When you make stupid statements  like this you make it too easy for me to swat you around.


it is only because Britain and the US were friendly for the majority of the time (W1812 the obvious exception) that the US was able to expand westward with so little opposition (ie natives and Mexicans rather than Spanish/French or British).

Who taught you history? The US and Britain remained economic and political enemies and competitors down to the Spanish American War. It wasn't until the onset of WW I, that relations thawed enough that both nations could co-operate together as co-belligerents. Even then it was America's long term goal to DESTROY the British  Empire.
 

the British never opposed the expansion west from the original 13 colonies, which they could well have done if interested in doing so.

How so? Where was the logistics base to be, after the US got New Orleans? Never learned geography properly either, did you?

it didn't dispute the Lousiana purchase (which most might say wasn't Napoleon's to sell in the first place) or back Spain in wanting it back.

How can you dispute what you can't reach? They did try you know.  Tried and  failed. What cretin taught you history, again? 

Britain never got involved in the ACW when it could have supported the CSA and done its standard practice of never letting one power get too strong in an area.

Read Seward's papers. The British did everything short of declaring war to help the Confederacy. Their internal politics helped forestall them, but the threat of a possible  Sherman in New York after Gra
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/3/2008 1:09:11 PM


it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 





One simple answer. Cowflop.

I suggest you do an economic analysis of the Earth at the time. The proto-US was at 1/4 of France's economic output and CLIMBING. If not 1783 then by 1820. Britain in NA was FINISHED.

Herald



the american colonies were doing quite well and per capita were actually richer than the british themselves.  i would suggest this wasn't going to be all that helpful to the revolutionaries though because most of that wealth was under british control especially during the early part of the war.  look to where the stands of muskets came from along with much of the powder and shot that equipped the continental army.  where did the cannon come from by and large?  the gold to pay the continental army?

From Holland and Spain initially actually. Who taught you history? Read Ben Franklin's papers. Before Saratoga, the French gave bluster, Lafayette, and provided some credit, but it was the Spanish who came across with smuggled material before then, and the Dutch who arranged the initial banking. The French were in a wait and see mode.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    Spain's role in the American Revolution   1/3/2008 1:30:13 PM
"From Holland and Spain initially actually. Who taught you history? Read Ben Franklin's papers. Before Saratoga, the French gave bluster, Lafayette, and provided some credit, but it was the Spanish who came across with smuggled material before then, and the Dutch who arranged the initial banking. The French were in a wait and see mode.


Herald"
 
As a side note to Herald' statements, some info regarding Spain's role in the American Revolution can be found at  ;>
 
Tercio
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics