[Cipher13]

Within the next 5 years...

The US bombs Iraq, severely.

Iraq nukes Washington, from the inside - 'backpack nuke' style.

The US nukes Iraq.

The rest of the Middle East attack all Western 'civilisation'.

The US nukes the Middle East.

The US is crippled by the attacks from the inside, against them. Canada suffers similarly, backing up the US with troop, medical, and facility support.

Russia sits back and watches. It's economy skyrockets like nothing ever seen before.

China sees the worlds eyes taken off it, taking advantage of Europe's new weakness, given their major protection is now incapacitated.

China invades Europe. North Korea, allying with China, invade South Korea. South Korea fight back violently.

Russia won't take this - unofficially allying with South Korea (common enemy's), they counter-invade Europe, against China. The New Commonwealth of Independent States is formed.

China and North Korea, following the US-set example, use nukes. Why not, after all?

In the meantime, the staple of Western civilisation moves to Australia - the most untouchable nation on earth. Too far to be bombed by planes; too far to send an ICBM, or sea fleet undetected.

With the technology gained from the US, Britain, Europe, and many innocent Asian countries, the war is fought from here.

A new balance of power is in the making - Russia, China, Australia.

Russia and China weaken each other to the point of near-death; new allies and enemies are formed, treaties signed, and we're living in the New World.

Meh, it was on my mind, I had to spit it out somewhere, as unrealistic as it is... it just goes to show how much things could change.

What do you think the future holds?

[The Godfather]

I am moving to Antarctica and eat penguins then.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Within the next 5 years...

The US bombs Iraq, severely.
... snip

... and to repopulate the planet with Aussies, the official motto of the New World Order becomes: G'day, .... Mate!! (imperative)

[PorscheBunny]

With the enforcement of Pax Americana, the American Republic transitions into the American Empire, the legislative body's power is gradually nullified, and the Emperorship being fought over by only certain families and factions.

Too many analogies to Rome of 1st century BC for my tastes, yet that seems to be the path we are taking.

Don't eat penguins unless you like fish and fat.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
A new balance of power is in the making - Russia, China, Australia.

Russia and China weaken each other to the point of near-death; new allies and enemies are formed, treaties signed, and we're living in the New World.

I just hope that new triunverate learns to live with their differences and set extreme greed aside.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
With the enforcement of Pax Americana, the American Republic transitions into the American Empire, the legislative body's power is gradually nullified, and the Emperorship being fought over by only certain families and factions.

Too many analogies to Rome of 1st century BC for my tastes, yet that seems to be the path we are taking.

Don't eat penguins unless you like fish and fat.

So true. If I didn't see a war that the US can't win so imminent, I'd agree completely.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
Don't eat penguins unless you like fish and fat.

So, a penguin is a walking fish-and-fries meal?

[PorscheBunny]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
So, a penguin is a walking fish-and-fries meal?

Fish-and-oil is closer to it.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
So true. If I didn't see a war that the US can't win so imminent, I'd agree completely.

Rome never did completely conquer the "barbarians".

The US could win, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory, i.e. victory at so high a cost that you would have been better off losing or not fighting in the first place.

[OreoCookie]

A vivid imagination.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
With the enforcement of Pax Americana, the American Republic transitions into the American Empire, the legislative body's power is gradually nullified, and the Emperorship being fought over by only certain families and factions.

No kidding ... the American public's (I'm American, BTW) complicity with aggressive intents of a small-minded president is beyond my understanding. At the rate we're going, Dubbya will be on TV pitching his reasons for attacking the moon because the way it shines light on "key american interests, putting American servicemen's lives at risk". Such are the perils of running an empire ... regardless of the "defending ourselves" yakkity-yak, you have to be engaged in some pretty heinous activities to keep the beast fed. The "Pax" part of "Pax Americana" is only in our minds and on our sitcom, reality-TV laden aloofness.

[PorscheBunny]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
A vivid imagination.

About what, eating penguins?

[Qhris]

I hope that none of that comes true.

Penguins give me gas.

[Nai no Kami]

Hey!. What about South America?. Are we so inexistent?

[denim]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
What do you think the future holds?

What bothers me is that I could see this happening, assuming I wasn't killed fairly early on.

[denim]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
With the enforcement of Pax Americana, the American Republic transitions into the American Empire, the legislative body's power is gradually nullified, and the Emperorship being fought over by only certain families and factions.

From what I've heard, that's the way things are going.

[voodoo]

China invade Europe? ... That's where you lost me Chiph. Why? Because the can? Through Russia? Or through what countries? Whoa man! That sounds a bit smoked.

[Timo]

ICBMs can't hit Australia? Prolly easier to target with subs.

There's nowhere to hide, unfortunately.

[anarkisst]

[xi_hyperon]

China would first have to go through Russia before invading Europe, so your scenario needs to be modified a bit.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head - I envision the polarization between west and east becoming so acute that the Arab nations set aside petty bickering and unite. Not as one nation, but in a NATO style alliance, to counter the west's perceived imperialistic behavior. When that happens, you can plan on another major middle east war against Israel, this time with a lot more death than the previous wars.

I don't know about Australia becoming the pinnacle of power, but as terrorist acts increase in the U.S., I can see the financial institutions of the world packing and making somewhere like Australia the new financial center of the world over the course of time. It's bad for business when you keep losing your top people in bombings, biological attacks and nukes.

Russia is a bit of a wild card. Would they sit out a full-scale west vs. east conflict, join NATO against the middle eastern nations, or take advantage and play both sides to their own benefit? There's potential payoff for them with each option.

[macvillage.net]

Cipher.

Please write your ideas as quatrains.


I fear your predictions are way to logical and real.


Once can only hope it can be avoided.

[zigzag]

Interesting. How about: the U.S. attacks Iraq, Saddam hurls a few bombs at Israel, makes some relatively ineffective efforts to deploy bio/chem weapons, the U.S. cripples the Iraqi regime within a month or two, a multilateral force moves in to maintain order, and life pretty much goes on as before.

I'm not necessarily advocating it, and it may well turn out differently, but I suspect that it's a more likely scenario.

[Mulattabianca]

the average americans (read: those in the USA) are (even) 20 % fatter than they are now.

60 % of the population of argentina lives in europe or in the usa. and 30 % of the rest of south americans and 20 % of the africans as well.

an international research will reveal that using winwows will cause microsoftedness

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Interesting. How about: the U.S. attacks Iraq, Saddam hurls a few bombs at Israel, makes some relatively ineffective efforts to deploy bio/chem weapons, the U.S. cripples the Iraqi regime within a month or two, a multilateral force moves in to maintain order, and life pretty much goes on as before.

I'm not necessarily advocating it, and it may well turn out differently, but I suspect that it's a more likely scenario.

I listened to an interview with the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States this morning on NPR. What he said is pretty much what you just said. They are concerned about how events might go, but they are also concerned about the current regime in Iraq and will be happy to see it go, or at least disarmed. As cautious as they are, he didn't seem to think the world is about to end.

He seemed to suggest a few interesting things. One is that the US will be allowed to use Kuwaiti territory "to enforce UN sanctions." He also said his government takes nothing the Iraqi government says at face value and that they basically trust the US. The third thing was that the Kuwaiti government hopes it is consulted on the composition of the new Iraqi government. Most interestingly, Al-Sabah referred to the change in the Iraqi regime more as a "when" than an "if."

The bottom line is the US is quite capable of militarily defeating a regime like Iraq's. The only thing that could have created problems is if the US couldn't use neighboring territory. That would have made an attack logistically difficult. With Kuwait allowing the US to use its territory, along with Oman, and Qatar, and possibly even Jordan, this problem dissipates. The other thing is that Iran yesterday reiterated its position of "strict neutrality." That takes another wildcard out of the equation.

I'm not predicting a walkover and it is sensible to prepare for worst-case scenarios. But bear in mind that we have heard all of this nervous apocalyism talk before. The last Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were all predicted to be disasters and quagmires. This boy has cried wolf a few too many times.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Within the next 5 years...

The US bombs Iraq, severely.

Possible, even probable.

Iraq nukes Washington, from the inside - 'backpack nuke' style.

Scary possibility. Assuming Saddam has nukes yet.

The US nukes Iraq.

Never. Thar be oil in them thar sands. We'd never cover all that black gold with radioactive dust. Not that America wouldn't bomb them into regular dust w/conventional weapons.

The rest of the Middle East attack all Western 'civilisation'.

Yeah, and they're bound to succeed in spades. Just look at their stunning triumphs over Israel

The US nukes the Middle East.

Again, never happen. America wants that oil, and will not make it unavailable by nuking the joint. Although I wouldn't put it past MidEast baddies to set off nukes there to the same end.

The US is crippled by the attacks from the inside, against them. Canada suffers similarly, backing up the US with troop, medical, and facility support.

Well, if this is the kind of war you're talking about...that could be scary. That sniper is bad enough.

Russia sits back and watches. It's economy skyrockets like nothing ever seen before.

Why would this happen? Who is it selling goods to that it wasn't before? Africa is on the other side of the radioactive Middle East in your scenario, and I'm guessing SE Asia would be buying from China. So how does this fantastic economy in the midst of war arise?

China sees the worlds eyes taken off it, taking advantage of Europe's new weakness, given their major protection is now incapacitated.

Well, Europe's military is pretty much a shadow of what it once was. I grant you they're vulnerable...

China invades Europe. North Korea, allying with China, invade South Korea. South Korea fight back violently.

...but from China? How? Through your new economic juggernaut, Russia? They're certainly not moving their millions of troops to Europe via that joke of a Navy they have, much less all the way around Cape Horn, since I imagine the Suez will be closed for business in your scenario. You know, with the nuclear weapons and all. I can see the PDRK invasion of the ROK, but you missed the obvious one: Taiwan.

Russia won't take this - unofficially allying with South Korea (common enemy's), they counter-invade Europe, against China. The New Commonwealth of Independent States is formed.

Again, The only realistic (and I use the term loosly) way for China to invade Europe is through Russia. So I doubt Russia would "counter-invade" Europe in response to China.

China and North Korea, following the US-set example, use nukes. Why not, after all?

Because I don't think America will use them. But who knows what China or the PDRK are thinking. They have a whole other way of doing things over there.

In the meantime, the staple of Western civilisation moves to Australia - the most untouchable nation on earth. Too far to be bombed by planes; too far to send an ICBM, or sea fleet undetected.

I assume you mean "stable". And I don't think China is too far away to nuke Australia, by plane or missile. And how is it that China's flotilla can make the month-long journey to Europe "undetected", but apparently can't get to Australia, which is no better (I'd guess worse) protected militarily than Europe and doesn't take nearly as long to get to?

With the technology gained from the US, Britain, Europe, and many innocent Asian countries, the war is fought from here.

I bet it's a coincidence that you live in Australia, isn't it Cipher?

A new balance of power is in the making - Russia, China, Australia.

Yeah, because it seems so realistic.

Russia and China weaken each other to the point of near-death; new allies and enemies are formed, treaties signed, and we're living in the New World.

I can see Russia and China at war...but not in the way you have envisioned it. Hell, Tom Clancy may be a hack, but if you want a China-Russia war, go read The Bear and the Dragon. Marginally entertaining at the least.

Meh, it was on my mind, I had to spit it out somewhere, as unrealistic as it is... it just goes to show how much things could change.

Unrealistic is not the word.

What do you think the future holds?

Five more years of the same old crap. Sorry Ciph, but there were just too many things that were wrong with that. Interesting, though.

--Josh

[fat mac moron]

It's close, but you forgot a few things....

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Within the next 5 years...

The US bombs Iraq, severely. France surrenders.

Iraq nukes Washington, from the inside - 'backpack nuke' style. France surrenders.

The US nukes Iraq. France surrenders.

The rest of the Middle East attack all Western 'civilisation'. France surrenders.

The US nukes the Middle East. France surrenders.

The US is crippled by the attacks from the inside, against them. Canada suffers similarly, backing up the US with troop, medical, and facility support. France surrenders.

Russia sits back and watches. It's economy skyrockets like nothing ever seen before. France surrenders.

China sees the worlds eyes taken off it, taking advantage of Europe's new weakness, given their major protection is now incapacitated. France surrenders.

China invades Europe. North Korea, allying with China, invade South Korea. South Korea fight back violently. France surrenders.

Russia won't take this - unofficially allying with South Korea (common enemy's), they counter-invade Europe, against China. The New Commonwealth of Independent States is formed. France surrenders.

China and North Korea, following the US-set example, use nukes. Why not, after all? France surrenders.

In the meantime, the staple of Western civilisation moves to Australia - the most untouchable nation on earth. Too far to be bombed by planes; too far to send an ICBM, or sea fleet undetected. France surrenders.

With the technology gained from the US, Britain, Europe, and many innocent Asian countries, the war is fought from here. France surrenders.

A new balance of power is in the making - Russia, China, Australia. France surrenders.

Russia and China weaken each other to the point of near-death; new allies and enemies are formed, treaties signed, and we're living in the New World. France surrenders.

What do you think the future holds?

That looks a little more realistic.

[Ca$h68]

How about this one:

US bombs iraq.

More terrorist attacks.

US bombs Iraq.

More terrrorist attacks

US bombs entire middle east, takes over middle east, and paves over middle east.

Cheap oil, no freaking religous towelheads in charge.

I like that one.

- Ca$h

PS: I don't like the middle east much. Religon ****ed it all up.

[oVeRmInD911]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
How about this one:

US bombs iraq.

More terrorist attacks.

US bombs Iraq.

More terrrorist attacks

US bombs entire middle east, takes over middle east, and paves over middle east.

Cheap oil, no freaking religous towelheads in charge.

I like that one.

- Ca$h

PS: I don't like the middle east much. Religon ****ed it all up.

Word.

[ink]

Nasty fantasy. You must have bad dreams at night, Ciph.

I think it'll go more like this:

• Security Council drafts tough inspection regulations
• Saddam finally complies
• -or-
• US and UK attack with help from a few allies, with Germany being noticably absent; the major action is over in 3 weeks, and cleanup continues for the next year with occupation going on for at least a decade
• A new government is setup in Iraq, and proper elections are held (none of this 1-person ballot with 99.98% of the vote)
• 50 years later, Iraq will be a very successful and rich nation, who will snub the US when it's doing the same thing somewhere else (which is just OK)

I like that better.

[denim]

Originally posted by oVeRmInD911:
Word.

Why do people say that? I've seen it around occasionally, but it never makes any sense.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by denim:
Why do people say that? I've seen it around occasionally, but it never makes any sense.

<square>
It's what we like to call a "slang" term for 'agreement' or 'acknowledgment'. The best substitute I can think of would be the French term 'd'accord'.
</square>

It's a word white suburban kids picked up listening to Tupac or Snoop Dog.

Or Run DMC if you's old school.

--Josh

[Codename]

Where would India and Pakistan stand in this?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not predicting a walkover and it is sensible to prepare for worst-case scenarios. But bear in mind that we have heard all of this nervous apocalyism talk before. The last Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were all predicted to be disasters and quagmires. This boy has cried wolf a few too many times.

Nervous apocalism is a good way to term it. On the other hand there is a general consensus that terrorist acts will increase in sophistication and frequency - keep in mind this can and probably will have an effect on our "life as usual" as zigzag says. How will things play out if a nuke is detonated in D.C. or NYC, or even worse, a biological attack of large scale is implemented? These possibilities are reality and they beg the question - what is the response? War? With whom? Probably countries targeted as sponsors of terrorism, many of which are in the middle east.

Also, with regards to the Arab nations capability to wage a war successfully on Israel- this isn't 1967. The yom kippur war in '73 was no walk-in-the-park for Israel, militarily or from the intelligence aspect. Israeli - Arab military capability - while still a mismatch - is closer to parity than it was back then. Having said that, keep in mind that whatever you can dream up as a terrorism scenario in the U.S. is also a scenario in Israel. The only difference is that if a biological weapon is used in Israel, the death/population ratio is much higher.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Codename:
Where would India and Pakistan stand in this?

Knee-deep in garam masala!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:

keep in mind this can and probably will have an effect on our "life as usual" as zigzag says. How will things play out if a nuke is detonated in D.C. or NYC, or even worse, a biological attack of large scale is implemented?

Well, if they nuke DC it wouldn't be my problem any more because I'd be a crispy critter.

But seriously, there is clearly a possibility of increased terrorism. Any time you confront an enemy, there is a chance that they will retaliate. And the longer we wait to act, the more likely it is that the weaponry available to terrorists will be more powerful. To me that's an argument for acting sooner rather than later. The message should be sent that it is not only unacceptable, but fatal, for any regime to behave the way Saddam's has.

If we give in now, we send another message entirely. What that would mean is the threat of terrorism will be validated as a legitimate means to deter us. And by us, I don't mean just the United States, I mean also the United Nations and every nation that stands for international order and the freedom of people from terrorism.

Giving in to terroristic threats from either Iraq or Al-Queda is not something I am ready to accept regardless of the fact that the danger to those of us who live in target areas like DC may increase. If we go down the path of giving in to the threat of terrorism, then the lights are truly going out in the civilized world (to paraphrase from another related context).

[voodoo]

I just realised something. Americans are scared sh�tless. I just didn't realise, untill now.

I suppose they have a right to be, but...

Carry on.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, if they nuke DC it wouldn't be my problem any more because I'd be a crispy critter.

But seriously, there is clearly a possibility of increased terrorism. Any time you confront an enemy, there is a chance that they will retaliate. And the longer we wait to act, the more likely it is that the weaponry available to terrorists will be more powerful. To me that's an argument for acting sooner rather than later. The message should be sent that it is not only unacceptable, but fatal, for any regime to behave the way Saddam's has.

If we give in now, we send another message entirely. What that would mean is the threat of terrorism will be validated as a legitimate means to deter us. And by us, I don't mean just the United States, I mean also the United Nations and every nation that stands for international order and the freedom of people from terrorism.

Giving in to terroristic threats from either Iraq or Al-Queda is not something I am ready to accept regardless of the fact that the danger to those of us who live in target areas like DC may increase. If we go down the path of giving in to the treat of terrorism, then the lights are truly going out in the civilized world (to paraphrase from another related context).

I don't disagree with you, although seeing terrorism as a "treat", you have a very positive outlook on things Simey. j/k

I only wonder what potential downward spirals an increase in terrorism could lead to, with regards to future conflicts globally. Having said that, I agree that conceding to such a threat is the wrong way to go.

[nvaughan3]

Is this our future?

only if you are droppping acid, and from your member title, that might just be the case.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by fat mac moron:
It's close, but you forgot a few things....

France surrenders.

That looks a little more realistic.

Hah - good one.

I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone, but in their defense, it has been brought to my attention that while they might have capitulated too easily, they did put up a fight and lost a lot of brave men. It seems that they just weren't very well prepared. Wine and cheese'll do that to ya.

[daimoni]

.

[zigzag]

Regarding the threat of more radical Islamic terrorism, it's certainly a possible consequence of invading Iraq. However, an argument could be made (by people much more knowledgeable than I am) that 9/11 might have been the apex of that particular phenomenon. The theory is that bin Laden expected 9/11 to result in a great uprising, but that the actual response has been relatively muted. Moslems do not appear to be flocking to his cause, mostly because they can see that it's just not that attractive. Even the throngs of hapless young males who we've been so worried about are looking at the situation and thinking "What exactly is flying a plane into a building or setting off a bomb going to get me?" Most just want modernization, and they realize that terrorizing the U.S. isn't going to get the job done.

Of course, there will always be terrorists of one sort or another to deal with, so we can't just go back to sleep. They're not going to disappear entirely, and there will be more attempts. But it can be argued that the bin Laden variety has seen its best days.

Could be wrong, but it's an interesting perspective.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
How about this one:

US bombs iraq.

More terrorist attacks.

US bombs Iraq.

More terrrorist attacks

US bombs entire middle east, takes over middle east, and paves over middle east.

Cheap oil, no freaking religous towelheads in charge.

I like that one.

- Ca$h

PS: I don't like the middle east much. Religon ****ed it all up.

Originally posted by oVeRmInD911:
Word.

Welcome to Simpletown.

[denim]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
<square>
It's what we like to call a "slang" term for 'agreement' or 'acknowledgment'. The best substitute I can think of would be the French term 'd'accord'.
</square>

Thanks. When you hit 30, you become square if you weren't already that way. That's if you managed to get to that age w/o having kids. If you have kids, you become square when they're born.

[V]

quote:



The rest of the Middle East attack all Western 'civilisation'.





This is impossible, that would disastrous for them. Israel would "jump" on syria and on lebanon. And Jordan and egypt would be attack too at their first trip. India would attack pakistan and track down his army, secret service and terrorist organizations (aren't they all the same?) in afghanistan hand in hand with the US Forces before they can reach Iran. Russia would invade Georgia and mass their troops at the borders of south caucasus and in central asia. China would do the same (mass their army at his border with pakistan and afghanistan) even if I doubt that muslims would hazard in China. They would more likely try to go in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan or turkmenistan.

That leaves only Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia head would probably be too scared too loose their oil (and the billions of $ that come with it) even if the islamic fundamentalism stream is becoming stronger and stronger there. I can already see France, russia, china, israel or even germany (!) to propose To the US (or UN) to take care of it.

In Iran, even if the third generation is not ready, nor able, to take the head, (The first generation of iranian revolutionary knocked down the Chah regime, they are old and doddering but still radical and dangerous, the second one have gone through the war against iraq, they are a little lost and passive, puppets for the Ayatollahs. And the third represent more than 35 percent of the iranian population (aged between 16 to 30). They are religious, but not fundamentalist. Contrarily to the new generation of Saudi Arabian they do not blame the US for their poverty, but a bad management of the country by the theocratic regime. This is the greatest hope for democracy in all the Middle East, this country can't be touch by the west. If it burst into fired the good head of the bicephalous regime must be maintain or the rotten one chopped subtly (?) Khatami, the reformist president would not survive to an invasion of the country by a western power. Furthermore, the US (and/or UN) should allow them to index the chiite southern Iraq to keep Iran at bay and keep it calm. In the case of a storm the reformist would be wipe out by the fundamentalist Ayatollahs and Mollahs, leaving almost no chance of emergence of the third generation. And everybody would fight to have his oil.

So now what would we have? A Middle East under military occupation, some kind of dead end neocolonialism, no colonizing can, even if they want, leave (destabilization and civil war, or another colonizing country increase his hegemony on the region and on oil). Risk of war between colonizing country. Obligation to assimilate or annihilate the Arab Muslim population otherwise they become all martyr terrorist overnight (not only in occupied territory, in your backyard too...) etc etc etc.

Have I lost myself?

[Ca$h68]

Being an armchair general rules.

- Ca$h

[brink]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
I am moving to Antarctica and eat penguins then.

Move to Iceland and eat sheep testicles instead. That's what I plan to do when things get bad. Got my Icelandic for Dummies book and everything.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Interesting. How about: the U.S. attacks Iraq, Saddam hurls a few bombs at Israel, makes some relatively ineffective efforts to deploy bio/chem weapons, the U.S. cripples the Iraqi regime within a month or two, a multilateral force moves in to maintain order, and life pretty much goes on as before.

I'm not necessarily advocating it, and it may well turn out differently, but I suspect that it's a more likely scenario.

Thank you. Cipher left out Israel, India and Pakistan who won' just be sitting by idly. There are far too many missing pieces to that first post. No it wont happen that way.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Timo:
ICBMs can't hit Australia? Prolly easier to target with subs.

There's nowhere to hide, unfortunately.

ICBM's can indeed hit us, but they'd be in-flight for more than long enough for a technologically-equipped Australia to take them out without a problem.

I'll respond to other posts when I get to work

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Cipher13:


ICBM's can indeed hit us, but they'd be in-flight for more than long enough for a technologically-equipped Australia to take them out without a problem.

I'll respond to other posts when I get to work

Good luck taking out the nukes parked 10 km off your coastline. Those are a real bitch to target.

[andymcdeee]

I couldn't think of anything worse than a world full of australians.



Now, a world full of Kiwis on the other hand! That would be awesome!!! Heaps of beer, everybody down to earth, cops don't even have guns. Did I mention heaps of beer?

And, for any australians who think that I'm talking about their own country let me point out that WE OWN YOUR BEER!! (and it's cheaper here too!!)

So there you go. World domination from NZ.

P.S. Remember, Kiwis have more fun.

[denim]

Originally posted by andymcdeee:
And, for any australians who think that I'm talking about their own country let me point out that WE OWN YOUR BEER!! (and it's cheaper here too!!)

Now that you've pointed that out, they may try to invade!

Granted, you've got The Ring to repel them...