Their army needs to be better because they have a lot more enemies.
He raises a good point about cross canada america invasion. our borders don't need to be guarded, because were such good buddies. They are our top hat and we their shirt. Mexico is the dancing pants.
the army's a hell of a lot better
but if someone wanted to attack america it would make sense to invade through canada. that'd be the best place to attack from
Like you said we're good buddies...so there's no way you'd be able to invade us through Canada, because the minute Canada is threatened the U.S would get involved. Basically if any other country in the eastern hemisphere crosses over we're at war with them..
that's what I'm saying though. If you wanted to attack America Canada would be the best way through
If Russia attacked Canada they'd already be at the border
of russia canada
But can you think of a better, more likely way someone would invade America?
But it would give you a base. It would be much harder to launch an amphibious invasion.
There's no way a major naval assault could be mounted on either coast. The Canada route is not very likely but it's more likely
No doubt we're very safe. I just think Canada is the better way
How exactly would America be safer than Canada? Especially in a world war?
Since we're all shouting out random places that would be safe but really impractical be, why not mars?
There was one that was barely impractical.
Go to a science base
Probably Antarctica. I would definitely go there if it was the only way to be sure about survival. Besides, what at some neutral place like argentina that's far away from everything. The war would probably be between us and the north Koreans or Iranians, right?
Technically, scientists live there so obviously not. Joke, I get it, but still.
The cold would kill you before the war probably did..
Not sure if you read my comment up higher, but argentina is actually nearly at war with the UK over the falklands (or malvinas, if you're South American) and we'll get dragged into one side by the OAS or NATO. But I agree, Antartica, or some small island nation like Niue, is probably safest.
@ShadowofSin Yeah, but (I think that) the next world war, if it happens, would be between either North Korea/Iran/China vs Western World, so Argentina wouldn't necessarily be involved.
I'd go to Switzerland
I'd go to Asgard. That's just me though.
I disagree. Go to somewhere like Niue. No one would bomb Niue. In the event of a world war, it's probably the US vs another country eventually, and thus we're nearly the first one to get bombed, because I truly believe the next world war is a nuclear one.
It's a good place to put a military base due to the Pacific being huge. I think whatever countries fighting across the ocean would want it.
Not at all. Everyone hates America.
Hahaha no, wrong. Those in NATO hate the US too. Most countries do
Yes, but alliances falter in certain situations too. For example: The Falkland islands is claimed by both Argentina and the United Kingdom. The United States is part of both OAS (Organization of American States) and NATO. So if a war started, who would we support? That's a major issue. Alliances aren't certain, they just are on paper. That's why many NATO nations are kind of against the US. Greece, namely, is actually pretty radically against the US because of the US's support of Turkey in gaining Turkish Cyprus (even though it's a predominantly greek nation).
Wow, sorry, my Model UN skills overcame me. Obviously the United States would not be afraid of Greece or Cyprus in the event of a world war, but I think my point of alliances being null is some cases has been made. :D
Tierra del fuego
Let's put it this way if you lived in a country that went to war you would want to be in America
Tip of south america ...who cares about that place?
I felt that this was relevant.
That was funny.
I agree, which is interesting, because America would most likely be a major target.
Yeah, but all the other countries would not succeed in an attack against us.
Switzerland. No country will bomb them, most leaders have money in Swiss banks, and they'll be neutral