INVASION!!!!!! What country do you trust to help?

[Treefingers]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

 

[Ungenericteen]

United Kingdom, I would feel safe knowing that the S.A.S and the S.B.S are on our side. The U.K has always been America's pal (except the war of 1812, and the American revoltion) always there to help us out, and yes I will make pie for every British squad, and drinks are on me.

 

[Superior Mind]

I wouldn't pick America to be honest. One of the most poweful armies in the world, yes, would beat down any invader, true - the thing is the one thing Americans are notorious for are blue on blue incidents and bluntly put if I was fighting an invader the last thing I want to happen is my own side shooting me in the arse or dropping a bomb on my head.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

I would go to Germany, because the Bundeswehr is the second largest of the armed forces in NATO aside from the US, and I find their equipment to be better than the French, who have the largest NATO military aside from the US.

eh? The UK has the largest military in NATO aside from the US and has the second most powerful power projection ability in the world (the US being the first)

Not even close. The UK only has about 435,500 soldiers total. France has 779,450, and the German Bundeswehr has 683,150.

But, it does have the largest air force and navy in Europe, so that makes it pretty damn strong, but if we are fighting China then they could easily surpass Britain in power projection if they wanted to. They can't now, but China has a lot to work with. If we are fighting Russia, then I definitely want the UK on my side, but against China, Germany is the way to go.

Actually, no. The USAF and the navy can hold its own, so I want a large NATO power with damn good weapons, so Germany it is.

Links to back up those numbers please

in terms of power projection China can do nothing to anyone apart from sending 3 men on a rubber dingy to beat up monks/students

You underestimate the power of China. Any nation with its manpower, resources, and massive finances can easily build up power projection.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

It includes the total number of military personnel, being active, reserve, and paramilitary, whatever paramilitary is specifically.

 

[real life potato]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

If any country were insane enough to actually ty and invade the US of A, I gotta say that we would be able to count on the Mexicans. I'd like to have Israel on our side, but the fact is that they don't have the capacity to project power like that. Mexico, however,is not only directly south of us, but they have a military and police force hardened by years of bitter conflict with drug cartels. We have been on generally good terms (except for, you know, that war a long time ago), and have been rather interdependent for a long time. they would be the obvious allies.

 

[robert022614]

well if the U.S. was invaded i would go with the U.K. i mean we talk a lot of crap but in the end all brothers in arms do.

 

[real life potato]

If any country were insane enough to actually ty and invade the US of A, I gotta say that we would be able to count on the Mexicans. I'd like to have Israel on our side, but the fact is that they don't have the capacity to project power like that. Mexico, however,is not only directly south of us, but they have a military and police force hardened by years of bitter conflict with drug cartels. We have been on generally good terms (except for, you know, that war a long time ago), and have been rather interdependent for a long time. they would be the obvious allies.

*those wars a long time ago

If Israel could beef up the army, it would be ballin' as hell. They have the training already. With military training like that and a large force behind said training...

 

[wizzerd229]

America. Well they have troops stationed here so they have a reason. And yes there will be pie, tis the national food.

Wait, where are you, I LOVE PIE!!!
OT: i don't really hate anyone, except for the English for not letting Scotland be a sovereign nation

 

[DJ Lord Destructocon]

I'm in Canada, so I guess i'd just ask the big ol US of A to come and bail us out, but having to UK on our side would be good too. Both those guys are great.

I'd probably go with US just because of the sheer amount of firepower they have

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.

Yes, they were. Without Stalin, the Allies wouldn't have had the resources to pull it off. America could never have defeated Nazi Germany. We weren't powerful enough. Britain and America could have held off Hitler, but not defeated him. It took the power of the mobilized USSR to win the war in Europe.

Also, Stalin was much more concerned with industrializing Russia, not with conquering Germany. Also, unlike Napoleon, the Winter did not harry the invaders the whole way through. Winter didn't win the war. If the Germans had struck right for Moscow, they would have bypassed the winter and won, but they weren't defeated with the arrival of winter, just stalled. Russia's victory was due to her sheer numbers of soldiers, who fought viciously. In fact, there is a record of a German rifle company which was reported attacked by an entire division of Soviets troops armed with shovels and hammers. The ferocity of Stalin's Red Army was incredible, as was his ability to replace casualties.

 

[Lord Of Cyberia]

Well, I'm from the USA. I don't really see any nation as posing any kind of threat with conventional, chemical, or biological weapons, as we have the most advanced ones, and the most, and we still have at least half of our Cold War nukes. So hey, Good things come to those who help themselves.

Dear Gawd that sounded Jingoistic.

 

[Maxman3002]

I'm from Scotland. I'd trust Wales to come to our aid.

Plus we both hate the English.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they say.

Whats with all the hate for England? I thought we were a United Kingdom? Arnt we stronger together than apart?

OT: Id probably choose Germany, they kinda owe us a battle on our side since the whole WW2 thing

 

[Ninja Monkey]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within this time period. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.

Erm, the Aussies helped you out in Vietnam at America's request. Hell, they even conscripted us using what was called 'The death lottery' and televised on national TV. There were also 'Aussies' with suspiously British sounding accents as well (due to a tie up of treaties that the UK was bound up in.)

Further reading: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/vietnam.asp

As an Aussie, would have to say the US. They bailed us out in the Pacific when most of our soldiers were busy in Europe (on behest of good old Winston.) Pretty much from then on we have sent troops whenever America has come knocking, so would expect them to return the favour.

 

[jacx]

almost ne one except france and russia

 

[hippykiller]

Probably the USA.

Call in the Marines bitches!

 

[Emperor Platypus]

Well considering my country is the only one leaving Afghanistan and is therefore sort of abandoning the rest of you guy's I really doubt anyone would want to come to our aid.

That said I'd pick Germa...... hang on a minute, I'd pick Finland. Judging from their past track record they REALLY know how to fight.

 

[fabio085]

Im from New Zealand so I guess it would be Australia considering the whole ANZAC spirit, too bad none of our sheep would be safe

yea collateral is a ***** err if we aussies were invaded by the demons to the north aka phillipinoes id hope the USMC would come down for some field training

 

[real life potato]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.

Yes, they were. Without Stalin, the Allies wouldn't have had the resources to pull it off. America could never have defeated Nazi Germany. We weren't powerful enough. Britain and America could have held off Hitler, but not defeated him. It took the power of the mobilized USSR to win the war in Europe.

Also, Stalin was much more concerned with industrializing Russia, not with conquering Germany. Also, unlike Napoleon, the Winter did not harry the invaders the whole way through. Winter didn't win the war. If the Germans had struck right for Moscow, they would have bypassed the winter and won, but they weren't defeated with the arrival of winter, just stalled. Russia's victory was due to her sheer numbers of soldiers, who fought viciously. In fact, there is a record of a German rifle company which was reported attacked by an entire division of Soviets troops armed with shovels and hammers. The ferocity of Stalin's Red Army was incredible, as was his ability to replace casualties.

So the army of Finland was so badass that it managed to defend itself against the Soviets for as long as it did? The leadership of the Red Army was severely damaged when Stalin took power. After murdering thousands of army officers, it was left a shell of what it could have been. Many of the "senior" officers that were in charge after the purge were highly inept at combat, which cost the Red Army thousands more casualties than needed. Just because a rifle company was attacked by a division of Soviets with shovels and hammers doesn't mean an army is "mobilized" and "vicious." The war could have been won without Russia, though it helped shorten the war by many years.

 

[blalien]

I'm from the USA, and I'd probably pick Israel because their entire military is made up of genetically engineered supersoldiers. Being a continent away might be an issue, though.