The United States versus The World

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

The United States versus the world in a non-nuclear full-scale conventional war.

Victory conditions for US: Destroy the standing military forces of every other country on the planet, as well as their ability to create and maintain a non-partisan military, that is, destroy all manufacturing centers.

Victory Conditions for the World: Do the same to the US.

Assume a World War scenario; popular and political support are not issues, and any amount of casualties on either side are acceptable.

[Donkey Show]

So none of the allies of the United States exist then, correct?

There's a slim margin that the United States could win, because of strategically placed bases and amazing war fighting technology and armaments being used before the ground troops take charge. We could literally attack any part of the world in a mere 30-60 minutes, if not less.

But if we take into account other factors, such as sheer numbers in China, would be able to storm the hell out of the United States.

Another big factor that would hurt the United States is the fact that our military is significantly smaller than what it was in the 80s. To spread out our troops across the earth would be too much.

But since I'm in the army myself, I'mma have to say, go US!!!

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

Air and Naval power are the fulcrum of victory; the overwhelming avantage the US Air Force and the US Navy have over the rest of the world means that only the Canadians could ever strike at US soil, and the Canadians wouldn't live long, especially right next door.

The US takes it, because it would be impossible for China or anyone to invade or bomb the US mainland. On the other hand, the US can drop any amount of bombs anywhere in the world and take minimal casulties.

Air power and naval blockades win the day.

[Miguel_erosennin]

Do you really think you would win?

China has some power in case you don’t know, and if china Russia paquistan India and Portugal(hahahahaahahahah) and many more join forces we would win.

[pnoypridz]

lol no way in hell US can beat the whole world

plus US would be wayyy weaker if the country importing the oil to us stop

[Shunsui]

The world. This presumption is not made with any inkling as to the military power of any nation in question, but entirely on the idea that the US has no control over oil and many other essential supplies that would be needed to wage such a large non-nuclear war. Sure we have a gigantic arsenal, but we don't have enough gas to launch it all :laugh

[Havoc]

although we are at a severe disadvantage we would win. There's no need to discuss this anymore US is invincible. All we have to do is send copies of the Ashlee Simspon cd to all the enemy coountries and they will continually bleed from the ears until they die. Owned?.....yes

[Kamendex]

Air and Naval power are the fulcrum of victory; the overwhelming avantage the US Air Force and the US Navy have over the rest of the world means that only the Canadians could ever strike at US soil, and the Canadians wouldn't live long, especially right next door.

The US takes it, because it would be impossible for China or anyone to invade or bomb the US mainland. On the other hand, the US can drop any amount of bombs anywhere in the world and take minimal casulties.

Air power and naval blockades win the day.

Thats not the case, continental Nucleur bombs can destroy the United States easily. Many countries have those now...Plus the US relies so heavily on China and Saudi arabia, that if they decided to cut off oil supplies and every day goods to the US, a war wouldnt last 1 year.

Unless the US decides to depleat their Oil in Alaska.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

Way to argue your point :thumbs

I do think the US would win, yes. China is nothing; their army has no way to fight the US.

Europe, Russia and Japan are the only real threats. Because they have the technology to fight the US on an even level. But not enough of it.

Thats not the case, continental Nucleur bombs can destroy the United States easily. Many countries have those now...Plus the US relies so heavily on China and Saudi arabia, that if they decided to cut off oil supplies and every day goods to the US, a war wouldnt last 1 year.

Notice the "non-nuclear" line up there. If it's a nuclear war, we all know what happens. The entire world becomes a parking lot. Game over for everyone. Not interesting.

[Kamendex]

I do think the US would win, yes. China is nothing; their army has no way to fight the US.
China is the #1 Economic power in the world, and they have the largest Man army. They have nukes, and they are a communist super power.

Europe, Russia and Japan are the only real threats. Because they have the technology to fight the US on an even level. But not enough of it.

Russia is more then a threat and Japan doesnt have an army.

[Miguel_erosennin]

Way to argue your point :thumbs

I do think the US would win, yes. China is nothing; their army has no way to fight the US.

Europe, Russia and Japan are the only real threats. Because they have the technology to fight the US on an even level. But not enough of it.



Notice the "non-nuclear" line up there. If it's a nuclear war, we all know what happens. The entire world becomes a parking lot. Game over for everyone. Not interesting.

Ho Europe has noting really, think about this blueshift, what is the great protection of Europe? Its nato(otan) and nato(otan) its controlled by united states, most Europe countries need united states to protect in case of an attack.

With the end of the second world war Germany lost all of theirs army and nuclear weapons, Europe only has France, Spain italy and many more are protected by you people the united states.

[Shunsui]

Just because they wouldn't be able to strike at the heart of the US doesn't mean much. There are 6 billion - 250 million people in the world that live outside of the US and a fair percentage of them are male, and of fighting age. That combined with the military capabilities of the world combined leaves the US fighting a bitter unprogressive and tiring war that would result in the quick expiration of our very limited supplies.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

The world. This presumption is not made with any inkling as to the military power of any nation in question, but entirely on the idea that the US has no control over oil and many other essential supplies that would be needed to wage such a large non-nuclear war. Sure we have a gigantic arsenal, but we don't have enough gas to launch it all :laugh

This is the main point of the debate right here; whether the US could wage war without OPEC on it's side.

My take is that with the fields in Mexico and Canada taken over, and strict rationing, oil won't be a severe problem.

Also remember that just about every other country in the world that could put up a decent fight also imports oil; US Navy blockade=pwned.

[Havoc]

China is the #1 Economic power in the world, and they have the largest Man army. They have nukes, and they are a communist super power.



Russia is more then a threat and Japan doesnt have an army.

nukes dont matter becuz in this war they wouldnt be used, and besides if nukes were used it would be a tie cuz we would all be dead.

[pnoypridz]

US can own anycountry 1v1 but vs multiple opponent the army would start to run thin..... even right now US troops are running thin because of the soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan

[Kamendex]

Ho Europe has noting really, think about this blueshift, what is the great protection of Europe? Its nato(otan) and nato(otan) its controlled by united states, most Europe countries need united states to protect in case of an attack.

Nato is not contolled by the United states...the US is one of the members...
Name some countries that need US protection...

With the end of the second world war Germany lost all of theirs army and nuclear weapons, Europe only has France, Spain italy and many more are protected by you people the united states.
Germany never had Nukes in WW2, plus that was a long time ago. Since then Germany has an army and is a super power.

The countries that US have to contend with are

Canada
UK
Britain
France
Germany
Sweden
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea

Gah to many to name.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

Just because they wouldn't be able to strike at the heart of the US doesn't mean much. There are 6 billion - 250 million people in the world that live outside of the US and a fair percentage of them are male, and of fighting age. That combined with the military capabilities of the world combined leaves the US fighting a bitter unprogressive and tiring war that would result in the quick expiration of our very limited supplies.

Do you know how many people a large bomb can, shall we use a emphemism, de-mobilize?

Air Power is crucial; without establishing air superiority, no amount of soldiers can prevail. Death from the skies. Remember that China and whoever else have gazillions for people for the meat grinder; but how will they get them to the US? They can't; they would need a massive fleet, and the US has the only significant navy in the world.

[Kamendex]

This is the main point of the debate right here; whether the US could wage war without OPEC on it's side.
It cant
My take is that with the fields in Mexico and Canada taken over, and strict rationing, oil won't be a severe problem.
Rofl, sry KnK but Canada and Mexico have almost no oil, they are useless.
Also remember that just about every other country in the world that could put up a decent fight also imports oil; US Navy blockade=pwned.
You cant put a naval blockade on everything knk.

Saudi Arabia can easily send Oil via land.


Do you know how many people a large bomb can, shall we use a emphemism, de-mobilize?
Yes a lot of people can be killed by bombs, but you seem to be under the impression that you can just walk in and drop bombs on any country.

Air Power is crucial; without establishing air superiority, no amount of soldiers can prevail. Death from the skies. Remember that China and whoever else have gazillions for people for the meat grinder; but how will they get them to the US? They can't; they would need a massive fleet, and the US has the only significant navy in the world.

How do you suppose the United States will have Air superiority in every country in the world and still be able to defend their own air?

And dont make up stuff like the US has the only great fleet...

its just a lie or ignorant comment.

Remember when Germany tried to take on the world in the great wars?

[Shunsui]

This is the main point of the debate right here; whether the US could wage war without OPEC on it's side.

My take is that with the fields in Mexico and Canada taken over, and strict rationing, oil won't be a severe problem.

Also remember that just about every other country in the world that could put up a decent fight also imports oil; US Navy blockade=pwned.
True, we would acquisition oil fields naturally over time. However, the idea of a navy blockade to oil importing countries is also somewhat pointless, considering that almost every country that can put up a fight is not in north america, and is therefore connected by land. Sure the air force would open up a can of whoop ass. Though the division of our forces would quickly become an issue. Hitler's greatest downfall when fighting WWII was that he tried to take on Russia simeltaneously with France, England, and the US.

The US at this point in time is not a very war-inclined environment. The declaration of full-scale world war against or by us would cause a great deal of internal struggles as well, and that's not considering the economic mess we're in because of the War + Tax Cuts + Social security fix up that Bush is trying to impliment in one big swoop with the potential to crush our currently sputtering economy.

Multi sided battle + strain for resources + less fighting population + weak economy + low morale = US gets pwnt.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

China may have a very large army but their technology suck compared to the United States. Strategy could easily overwhelm China. Everything is bacially by sea. WIthout nukes... i guess the united states could still win. No wait... we'll be forced to. THe world against the United States.. c'mon not every country is defensless against U.S. Technology in military. We'll be forced to use em, and it will be the end of thw world. Thats why countries with nukes dont usually get in a war with eachother. But shoot wait until we put a space station on the Moon.

John F. Kennedy - By the end of the Decade, we will put a man on the moon. *accomplished*
Georgia W. Bush - By 2020- w/e year he said, we will try and put a space station on the Moon.
Once we do that, it won't be the one who owns the air owns the world. It'll be the one who owns space owns the world heh.

[Miguel_erosennin]

Nato is not contolled by the United states...the US is one of the members...
Name some countries that need US protection...


Germany never had Nukes in WW2, plus that was a long time ago. Since then Germany has an army and is a super power.

The countries that US have to contend with are

Canada
UK
Britain
France
Germany
Sweden
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea

Gah to many to name.

Of course I know that us its not officially controlling the nato but you must know that nato was controlled by us, it was a measure to fuking the urss, later the urss start with varsovy pact that was a response to us, us always controlled nato. so your saying that you know Europe and the Europe problems better than me? Ok

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

It cant
I say it can :P

Rofl, sry KnK but Canada and Mexico have almost no oil, they are useless.Mexico has a significant amount, and Canada has more the Saudi Arabia. :oh

You cant put a naval blockade on everything knk.
The US can, actually. One aircraft carrier battlegroup can blockade a whole region.

Saudi Arabia can easily send Oil via land.
Not if they're owned. Which they will be, instantly.

[Gooba]

DS is in the Army, so we win. Plus all that Naval Supiriority stuff, but Go Army!!! Beat Navy!!! (I got a friend in West Point)

If we first take over the oil producers we can fuel ourselves. We just need to be strategic.

[pnoypridz]

Do you know how many people a large bomb can, shall we use a emphemism, de-mobilize?

Air Power is crucial; without establishing air superiority, no amount of soldiers can prevail. Death from the skies. Remember that China and whoever else have gazillions for people for the meat grinder; but how will they get them to the US? They can't; they would need a massive fleet, and the US has the only significant navy in the world.

air power aint every thing.....US drop 2x the bombs in Vietnam than in WWII

and the North vietnamese was still holding thier own vs the US even though they were agiant South Vietnam too

[~Kaio-Cam~]

nukes dont matter becuz in this war they wouldnt be used, and besides if nukes were used it would be a tie cuz we would all be dead.

they're are no rules in war. If it has to be used in order to not be invaded it'll be used. Once that happens, their could(possibly) be a first Nuclear war. Thats why its such a big deal if one is used.

[pnoypridz]

plus its not hard for the other countries to kill the naval blockade...other countries got air planes too that can drop bombs

[Miguel_erosennin]

I think that in a war like that nobody wins, all dies, that’s simple. Bomb here bomb there. All the humans would be bye bye.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

air power aint every thing.....US drop 2x the bombs in Vietnam than in WWII

and the North vietnamese was still holding thier own vs the US even though they were agiant South Vietnam too

The US killed ONE MILLION Vietnamese soldiers in the Vietnam war, and took 50,000 casulties in return. That's 20 to 1. Lack of popular support forced the war to end; if it had contiued indefinately, we would of depopulated the whole country.

Remember that this is TOTAL WAR. Either you win, or your farm is burned, your children raped, your country destroyed, your grave danced upon; poiltical support is not an issue.

[Kamendex]

I say it can :P
Meh

Mexico has a significant amount, and Canada has more the Saudi Arabia. :oh
I cannot believe you just said that.

Saudi arabia has 265 billion barrels of oil

Mexico has 26 billion

Canada has 5.6 billion

Canada and US use the most oil out of any other country in the world

And US gets more then half its oil from foriegn people


The US can, actually. One aircraft carrier battlegroup can blockade a whole region.
And you suspect that their will be no resistance to this? BTW how long would you think they would be able hold this blockade?

[Shunsui]

You're drastically underestimating the power of air and naval forces over land. One thing that I remember from playing civilization is that aircraft run out of fuel FAST. Sure modern technology has accounted for this problem by developing fueling aircraft and other remedies for this problem, but that's almost doubling the manpower that would be necessary to win this war. The oil in Mexico and Canada would also be nowhere near fully exploitable. One of the biggest obstacles the US overcame when fighting WWII was getting people to work and conserve. The current political atmosphere does not exactly accomodate a large-scale war, Vietnam and the war in Iraq shove(d) this in the face of the administration (:offtopic and ours still doesn't seem to listen :eyeroll ). We wouldn't be able to rally our measly (in comparisson) 250 million people to wage war; I don't just mean in terms of fighting power, but in order to utilize these resources in Canada and Mexico, not to mention keep the homeland economy from crashing, we would need to have a VAST amount of people supporting it. America just can't supply that.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

True, we would acquisition oil fields naturally over time. However, the idea of a navy blockade to oil importing countries is also somewhat pointless, considering that almost every country that can put up a fight is not in north america, and is therefore connected by land. Sure the air force would open up a can of whoop ass. Though the division of our forces would quickly become an issue. Hitler's greatest downfall when fighting WWII was that he tried to take on Russia simeltaneously with France, England, and the US.


Germany was Germany; cut off from resources and fighting practically the whole world from a little patch of land in Europe, it naturally had no choice but to die.

The United States is a hyperpower. It has the resources of an entire continent, and the production capacity of most of the rest of the world combined. The state of California would beat any other country on the planet one-on-one. This battle is even, at best.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

air power aint every thing.....US drop 2x the bombs in Vietnam than in WWII

and the North vietnamese was still holding thier own vs the US even though they were agiant South Vietnam too

Actually we should have one that damn war. We were winning, Air attacks did really good against them. BUT.... their was one battle that we lost cause of a stupid mistake. We lost... I REPEAT we lost more men in that one battle than all the battles and deaths put together. I'll explain in short why.

-------
Vietnam Celebration.. Feb. New Years, just like China
United States let guard down and respected their celebration since it's a big deal in vietnam. (think of it like Christmas. They're Buhdist though)
Surprise attack - We lost
President L.B. Johnson found out was surprised(of course) ask congress for more soldiers (THe president didnt have full power on the war. He had to ask for everything) Congress gave them half.
We couldnt gain back land
We retreated
Vietnam Communist

They announced before that terrible battle that the soldiers would be coming home by the end of that year. it lasted a few more years making it the logn war the U.S has ever been in. (23 YEARS)

READ

[pnoypridz]

i dont even think US can beat china in a normal war without nukes

and its just impossible for US to go beat the whole world for the simple fact that US needs the materials that the other countries make

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

[QUOTE]I cannot believe you just said that.
Saudi arabia has 265 billion barrels of oilMexico has 26 billionCanada has 5.6 billionCanada and US use the most oil out of any other country in the world
And US gets more then half its oil from foriegn people
You're quoting production; I'm quoting reserves. There is more oil under Canada then under Saudi Arabia.

And you suspect that their will be no resistance to this? BTW how long would you think they would be able hold this blockade?
Forever. Anything that an aircraft carrier doesn't like dies in a ball of fire. That's all there is to it.

[Kamendex]

The US killed ONE MILLION Vietnamese soldiers in the Vietnam war, and took 50,000 casulties in return. That's 20 to 1. Lack of popular support forced the war to end; if it had contiued indefinately, we would of depopulated the whole country.
100,000 soldiers died in Vietnam, US was not the only people in their. Plus they were fighting farmers with pitchforks.

[Miguel_erosennin]

i dont even think US can beat china in a normal war without nukes

and its just impossible for US to go beat the whole world for the simple fact that US needs the materials that the other countries make

100% agree with you. Oh my, china has a huge army, some people say it has more soldiers than us.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

Germany was Germany; cut off from resources and fighting practically the whole world from a little patch of land in Europe, it naturally had no choice but to die.

The state of California would beat any other country on the planet one-on-one. This battle is even, at best.

pfftt thats an extreme exaggeration. Maybe some of the weaker countries.

[Shunsui]

Germany was Germany; cut off from resources and fighting practically the whole world from a little patch of land in Europe, it naturally had no choice but to die.

The United States is a hyperpower. It has the resources of an entire continent, and the production capacity of most of the rest of the world combined. The state of California would beat any other country on the planet one-on-one. This battle is even, at best.
hyperpower yes, resources no. We don't have the morale, manpower, or raw materials (post-import-halt) to make this anything more than a large scale WWII

Germany had been stockpiling resources secretly since Hitler's rise to power
Germany lacked many raw materials, and had to import most everything
Germany had an arrogant leader who felt that his country could dominate the world (NOTE: NOT comparing bush to hitler in ANY WAY more than the arrogance factor)
Germany was against everyone around them, and most of its neighbors barely put up a fight


Starting to sound familiar to your arguments?

[Kamendex]

You're quoting production; I'm quoting reserves. There is more oil under Canada then under Saudi Arabia.
????

Im the one whos quoting reserves...
Saudi Arabia pumps 8,000 barrels a year and has 265 billion barrels reserved

US pumps out 7.9 even though they have only 22 billion barrels

Canada pumps out 2,000 a day and they have 5.2 billion reserved


Forever. Anything that an aircraft carrier doesn't like dies in a ball of fire. That's all there is to it.

So what happens when an aircraft carrier fights an aircraft carrier.

[pnoypridz]

The US killed ONE MILLION Vietnamese soldiers in the Vietnam war, and took 50,000 casulties in return. That's 20 to 1. Lack of popular support forced the war to end; if it had contiued indefinately, we would of depopulated the whole country.

Remember that this is TOTAL WAR. Either you win, or your farm is burned, your children raped, your country destroyed, your grave danced upon; poiltical support is not an issue.

but 50k is still too much vs a peasant like army

compare that if were fighting real powerful nations with air craft and navy like russia and china and other european countrys

imo US woudnt even last a year

edit: btw the 1million dead Vietnamese were mostly civilians not soldiers

[Miguel_erosennin]

With the end of the urss its obvious that the Americans think that they are the only super power and that’s true for now, but give more 10 20 years to china and we will see. They are growing fast.

[Shunsui]

Forever. Anything that an aircraft carrier doesn't like dies in a ball of fire. That's all there is to it.
aircraft carriers can only turn things into balls of fire while it has the gas to do so. The aircraft carrier would run out of resources, then more resources and manpower would be sent to get more resources and/or manpower to the carrier. Both run the risk of being sunk.

Also note that 5750000000 people are up against us (sure there are women and children included, but the same applies to the US) that's approximately 23 men to our one. Also, not all countries have the same standards we do. WWII showed us the devistation that 1 man could cause with a single kamikaze attack. There's no way that our technology could keep up with raw manpower, and even if we could keep up with it we would still have to OVERCOME IT.

Naval power or airforce power mean NEXT TO NOTHING if we beat the opposition down to a retreat into the center of asia, and if that happens it's down to our ground forces. There's no way they can win against 20 times their numbers.

[Kamendex]

1 million viet soldiers died, 4 million civilians died.

58 thousand Americans died, 40 thousand Australians

-PS I live in the United States

[~Kaio-Cam~]

China can not beat the United States even without nukes. We can draft millions of soldiers, not to mention the military weapons and new bombs made. We can beat them with weapons we made in the 70s. We can easily bomb their cities with the millions of people. We have bombers, carriers, wepaons, tanks, and a lot more that exceeds pass their capabalities. Large army isnt everything. It's the strategy.

[Kamendex]

China can not beat the United States even without nukes. We can draft millions of soldiers,
China can draft billions of soldiers...
not to mention the military weapons and new bombs made.
What the hell do you think the #1 economy in the world has been doing
We can beat them with weapons we made in the 70s. We can easily bomb their cities with the millions of people. We have bombers, carriers, wepaons, tanks, and a lot more that exceeds pass their capabalities. Large army isnt everything. It's the strategy.

Ignorance is amazing... Do you honestly think that the Chinese ride horses and shoot with bows and arrows?

[Shunsui]

China can not beat the United States even without nukes. We can draft millions of soldiers, not to mention the military weapons and new bombs made. We can beat them with weapons we made in the 70s. We can easily bomb their cities with the millions of people. We have bombers, carriers, wepaons, tanks, and a lot more that exceeds pass their capabalities. Large army isnt everything. It's the strategy.
Are you serious? We can draft so fewer men than China. The US is burdened with fairness and justice, China can just say YOU JOIN ARMY NOOOOOW We'd have a hard time bombing tibet :eyeroll, and the weapons we made in the sixties all being used on china would leave us WIDE open to the european powers.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

heh, got it! The United States would just invade country after country pumping off their resources and using their people to help fight after invasion. Strategy yo. think :P . First Mexico and Canada Simutaneously. Then latin america. Defense on shores. Force South American Countries to surrender, shouldnt be hard. Their people fight for us. We'll have 2 continenets combined together. 2 Continents against Europe and Asia. (forget Africa LOL). It's possible for any country to defeat the world. Remember Germany Japan, and the rest of the axis. :laugh

[Miguel_erosennin]

China can not beat the United States even without nukes. We can draft millions of soldiers, not to mention the military weapons and new bombs made. We can beat them with weapons we made in the 70s. We can easily bomb their cities with the millions of people. We have bombers, carriers, wepaons, tanks, and a lot more that exceeds pass their capabalities. Large army isnt everything. It's the strategy.

Its True true that its not all about numbers, but you should know that there is previsions that china will be the next super power in the world, and that’s not something that I’m inventing. And you say china doesn’t have technology in her army? Came on, they are a country that are always making improvements with her army’s. they can’t be so bad in terms of technology.

[Kamendex]

heh, got it! The United States would just invade country after country pumping off their resources and using their people to help fight after invasion. Strategy yo. think :P . First Mexico and Canada Simutaneously. Then latin america. Defense on shores. Force South American Countries to surrender, shouldnt be hard. Their people fight for us. We'll have 2 continenets combined together. 2 Continents against Europe and Asia. (forget Africa LOL). It's possible for any country to defeat the world. Remember Germany Japan, and the rest of the axis. :laugh

You Honestly think they are just gonna wait for the US to invade countries and take over resources?

And so their strategy is to get people from countries they took over to fight for them?

So basically give you enemy weapons and expect them to fight...

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

????
Im the one whos quoting reserves...

...You might be right. I might be insane. I'll drop that point.

So what happens when an aircraft carrier fights an aircraft carrier.We'll never know. The US has the only operational aircraft carriers.
China can draft billions of soldiers...Soldiers =target practice.
What the hell do you think the #1 economy in the world has been doingMaking Nike sneakers. Chinese military hardware is garbage.
Ignorance is amazing... Do you honestly think that the Chinese ride horses and shoot with bows and arrows?
They might as well be; the only aircraft the Chinese have that are capable of fighting the US Airforce are russian-made; once those (few) planes are destroyed, it's over. Their Navy is a similar joke. Apply bombs to their army, and you're left with not much at all.

[Shunsui]

heh, got it! The United States would just invade country after country pumping off their resources and using their people to help fight after invasion. Strategy yo. think :P . First Mexico and Canada Simutaneously. Then latin america. Defense on shores. Force South American Countries to surrender, shouldnt be hard. Their people fight for us. We'll have 2 continenets combined together. 2 Continents against Europe and Asia. (forget Africa LOL). It's possible for any country to defeat the world. Remember Germany Japan, and the rest of the axis. :laugh
This still doesn't make sense. One line of attack is totally pointless when you've got enemies on all sides. Not to mention that we don't have near enough people to utilize resources we dominate, another thing I learned from civilization is that cities you just conquered don't work for you for a while

[pnoypridz]

its not that hard to copy technology u know....Russian copied the A bomb in a couple of years after US made it

and its not like the other countries are in the stone age..they got weopons that can hurts us

[~Kaio-Cam~]

Are you serious? We can draft so fewer men than China. The US is burdened with fairness and justice, China can just say YOU JOIN ARMY NOOOOOW We'd have a hard time bombing tibet :eyeroll, and the weapons we made in the sixties all being used on china would leave us WIDE open to the european powers.

tssk it would make since yo. If u are being drafted their no way out cause we'll be going against world. No where to run unless u break ur legs and say i cant fight :laugh :laugh . China can have the largest army in the world. But United States has bombs that wipe out 100 men(not nukes). Quality over quantity. Europe is no threat. Really. Russia and North Kora is the only scare. :cool

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

You Honestly think they are just gonna wait for the US to invade countries and take over resources?

You don't understand; NO OTHER COUNTRY, except Mexico and Canada, who are weak, could ever invade the US mainland. You need a navy to move troops. No country has that kind of mobility, except the US.

[Miguel_erosennin]

I’m stunned, really. To think that it would be so easy to defeat china.

now this is a thread about china vr us so that means there are doubts if the us could defeat china.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

This still doesn't make sense. One line of attack is totally pointless when you've got enemies on all sides. Not to mention that we don't have near enough people to utilize resources we dominate, another thing I learned from civilization is that cities you just conquered don't work for you for a while

Who said we had to fight One line of attacks. In WWII we fought in Europe and in Asia at the same time. Japan on the left Axis on the right away fom out homeland. Right now 2005 we have soldier in three + foreign countries other than MidEast right now helping them. We dont even have a draft open. They're Volunteers.

[Kamendex]

We'll never know. The US has the only operational aircraft carriers.

Nine countries maintain aircraft carriers: United States, France, India, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. In addition the People's Republic of China's People's Liberation Army Navy possesses the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag


They might as well be; the only aircraft the Chinese have that are capable of fighting the US Airforce are russian-made; once those (few) planes are destroyed, it's over. Their Navy is a similar joke. Apply bombs to their army, and you're left with not much at all.
It is said that the chinese billion man army is undertrained and equiped.

But that was in the 90's

in the 90's it was also said that in the next century China will rival US's Military power.

Its 2005 right now

[Shunsui]

tssk it would make since yo. If u are being drafted their no way out cause we'll be going against world. No where to run unless u break ur legs and say i cant fight :laugh :laugh . China can have the largest army in the world. But United States has bombs that wipe out 100 men(not nukes). Quality over quantity. Europe is no threat. Really. Russia and North Kora is the only scare. :cool
Are you forgetting that they can fight too? Just because we have bombs doesn't mean we pwn by default, we would still probably pwn, but at the cost of many lives. Anti-aircraft artillery would thwart many attempts at attacking, and yes; the draft can be evaded :blink my hippie friend knows he has a cop-out whenever bush puts it back into place because he has flat feet.


Oh and KnK: It doesn't really matter if they can invade our homeland AS IS. By the time that we're running low on men and resources (waaaaay sooner than they will) we'll be ripe for the taking.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

...You might be right. I might be insane. I'll drop that point.


Soldiers =target practice.
Making Nike sneakers. Chinese military hardware is garbage.
all.

LMFAO so true. Also whoever said that, If china draft 1 billion soldiers, their be very few citizens to make resources and weapons for THAT MANY PEOPLE :P

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

I’m stunned, really. To think that it would be so easy to defeat china.

now this is a thread about china vr us so that means there are doubts if the us could defeat china.

The US could absolutely and totally defeat China; could it invade and conquer China? No way; China has too many people. But the victory conditons are the total destriction of a country's ability to wage war; the US could easily destroy every plane, tank, and ship in China's military and blow their factories and shipyards to high hell with no difficulty at all.

[Kamendex]

I quit this thread.

KnK's ignorance suprised me the most...

If the United States can take on the whole world, why havent they taken over the whole world yet?

[Shunsui]

Who said we had to fight One line of attacks. In WWII we fought in Europe and in Asia at the same time. Japan on the left Axis on the right away fom out homeland. Right now 2005 we have soldier in three + foreign countries other than MidEast right now helping them. We dont even have a draft open. They're Volunteers.
The difference is that the only attack on american soil in WWII was pearl harbor. This war is opening up many opportunities for attack. While easily thwarted, it reserves a piece of our military capabilities. Oh, and the "war" in the middle east is little more than an ego trip and oil hunt for bush at this point in time. (Not to mention the fact that they have minimal military capabilities. I'm sure there are a myriad of countries that can take on a tank)

[~Kaio-Cam~]

Are you forgetting that they can fight too? Just because we have bombs doesn't mean we pwn by default, we would still probably pwn, but at the cost of many lives. Anti-aircraft artillery would thwart many attempts at attacking, and yes; the draft can be evaded :blink my hippie friend knows he has a cop-out whenever bush puts it back into place because he has flat feet.


Oh and KnK: It doesn't really matter if they can invade our homeland AS IS. By the time that we're running low on men and resources (waaaaay sooner than they will) we'll be ripe for the taking.


No i havent forgotten. I'm estimating a few days for each country around us to survive :laugh :laugh . I'm talkin full blitz air sea and ground attack. swift like a snake in the sand. The countries around us are weak. Poor economy and/or poor military. HEH! u guys forget we can get allies, they will surrender.

[Shunsui]

I quit this thread.

KnK's ignorance suprised me the most...

If the United States can take on the whole world, why havent they taken over the whole world yet?
Because they can't :wink

and don't take this seriously, it's merely a solution for boredom. Just because KnK is playing the devil's advocate doesn't make her ignorant.

[Mecha-Kisame]

If the United States can take on the whole world, why havent they taken over the whole world yet?
Why do we need to? We're currently working on the oil, what else is there?

[pnoypridz]

Who said we had to fight One line of attacks. In WWII we fought in Europe and in Asia at the same time. Japan on the left Axis on the right away fom out homeland. Right now 2005 we have soldier in three + foreign countries other than MidEast right now helping them. We dont even have a draft open. They're Volunteers.

in WWII we had alliess european countries on the west and china on the east without allies US could never successfully attack more than one nation

plus after we take over a nation its not like the citizens are just going to stand thier and look.......thier going to fight back anyway they could and go Guerilla tactics and we have to put a huge army in the country that we took over so in the end our army are going to be more busy holding down the country that we took over rather than invade other countries

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

Nine countries maintain aircraft carriers: United States, France, India, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. In addition the People's Republic of China's People's Liberation Army Navy possesses the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

Those aren't aircraft carriers; those are pieces of junk.

ONE US Aircraft carrier carries more planes then every other carrier in the world combined. I'm serious.

[Kamendex]

Because they can't :wink

and don't take this seriously, it's merely a solution for boredom. Just because KnK is playing the devil's advocate doesn't make her ignorant.

Saying Canada has the most oil in the world and then saying China has no military is pretty low

[Miguel_erosennin]

Just one thing about nato.

Nato- its an organization that was born to protect the allies of the us. That means that was created by us. The us always had control over the nato and the nato it’s the great source of protection of the Europe countries.

I’m from Europe and I know Europe, and I say that to stop the us only china in a one vr one.

[Shunsui]

No i havent forgotten. I'm estimating a few days for each country around us to survive :laugh :laugh . I'm talkin full blitz air sea and ground attack. swift like a snake in the sand. The countries around us are weak. Poor economy and/or poor military. HEH! u guys forget we can get allies, they will surrender.
We won't have allies, that's a condition to this "battle"

By the way, you're forgetting that we're not fighting china, or canada, or mexico, or England. WE'RE FIGHTING THE ENTIRE WORLD

China's pouplation + Europe's technology + middle east's resources + african...err...moral support >.> would be more than strong enough by the time the US gets its ass over to the other hemisphere in enough force to do any real damage.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

omg >.< i know we had allies..... wait about this thread


Do u guys seriously think United States would not find allies, even the eviliest ones to help fight against the world..... It's pretty hard to think about it since the United States is really helping a lot of weak coutries right now.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

I was wrong about Canada... I think.

China indeed has no military THAT CAN FIGHT THE US.

If the United States can take on the whole world, why havent they taken over the whole world yet?
1. Nuclear weapons=not fun.
2. Tens of Millions of casulties.
3. It doesn't need to.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

this thread is impossible, we'll just argue about the poissiblities back and forth raising our post count drastically.

[Miguel_erosennin]

this thread is impossible, we'll just argue about the poissiblities back and forth raising our post count drastically.

I think it’s a good thread, I like it, to know what people think about this.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

i guess so, it's fun but its not gonna end lol. I'm riasing some of u peeps reps cause u made lose track of my homework :laugh

[Mecha-Kisame]

i guess so, it's fun but its not gonna end lol. I'm riasing some of u peeps reps cause u made lose track of my homework :laugh
No need for it to end!

A10 > Chinese footmen

[~Kaio-Cam~]

i guess so, it's fun but its not gonna end lol. I'm riasing some of u peeps reps cause u made lose track of my homework :laugh
EDIT:
Before i go, i just wanna say this. United States has the capabilities like the Axis to rule the world. I doubt we'll have trouble with resources other than oil. But it's all about the strategy. So pe@ce out i gotta go :)

[~Kaio-Cam~]

No need for it to end!

A10 > Chinese footmen

lmao yea. It'll be like shoes stomping ants.

[pnoypridz]

dont forget european countrys got almost as much technology as US

and a couple spies here and thier we can find out how US technology works

[Gooba]

If the United States can take on the whole world, why havent they taken over the whole world yet?Top Ten Reasons Why US Hasn't Taken Over the World:
10 Morals
9 Nukes
8 Casualties
7 Nukes
6 Running it once we take over is impossible
5 Nukes
4 Public support
3 Nukes
2 What is there to gain?
1 Nukes

[Kamendex]

So get rid of the Nukes in that 10 reasons and you have why the US wont win against the world

[Mecha-Kisame]

So get rid of the Nukes in that 10 reasons and you have why the US wont win against the world
We won't win because we can't manage the world once we've got it conquered, and because we have no reason to conquer it to begin with?

Hrm?

[Miguel_erosennin]

If I had to chose in witch side of the conflict I would be I would chose the world.

And if they try to take the world you possible wouldn’t be here anymore cause the us would have lot’s of damage. That’s a reason.

[Mecha-Kisame]

If I had to chose in witch side of the conflict I would be I would chose the world.

And if they try to take the world you possible wouldn’t be here anymore cause the us would have lot’s of damage. That’s a reason.
Yeah, the list already mentions casualties. :wink

[pnoypridz]

plus US cant possibly beat countries in Europe and Asian countries if they dont got a army base near by to refuel thier aircraft and boats.....take out hawaii = gg US for agiant asia asia

and in europe thiers no chance for US to win cuase thiers no base... when US boats gets to europe thier going to barely having any fuel left and they cant possibly go back and fourth to europe to states to get fuel

[Mecha-Kisame]

plus US cant possibly beat countries in Europe and Asian countries if they dont got a army base near by to refuel thier aircraft and boats.....take out hawaii = gg US for agiant asia asia

and in europe thiers no chance for US to win cuase thiers no base... when US boats gets to europe thier going to barely having any fuel left and they cant possibly go back and fourth to europe to states to get fuel
I'm fairly certain carriers are capable of staying deployed for an extended amount of time without needing to refuel. That's the whole idea of a carrier: a mobile base.

[Miguel_erosennin]

But the whole world would had all the bases in the world, us couldn´t had attack the Afghanistan or Iraq without turquia for example, and Their bases.

[Kamendex]

I'm fairly certain carriers are capable of staying deployed for an extended amount of time without needing to refuel. That's the whole idea of a carrier: a mobile base.


Tell me how a carrier will evade a high level bomber?

[pnoypridz]

can anyone tell me how many carriers the US have????

[Kamendex]

about 13ish maybe 15

each can hold about 85 planes.

[Mecha-Kisame]

Tell me how a carrier will evade a high level bomber
They have a surface-to-air missile system, duh.

The NATO SEASPARROW Surface Missile System (NSSMS) Mk 57 is a medium-range, rapid-reaction, missile weapon system that provides the capability of destroying hostile aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and airborne and surface missile platforms with surface-to-air missiles. The NSSMS can also be used to detect missile launchings by a surface vessel utilizing the NSSMS surveillance radar capability. The NSSMS consists of a Guided Missile Fire Control System (GMFCS) Mk 91 and a Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 29. The GMFCS is a computer-operated fire control system that provides automatic acquisition and tracking of a designated target, generates launcher and missile orders, and in the automatic mode initiates the firing command when the target becomes engageable.

Quoted from GlobalSecurity.org for accuracy.

[pnoypridz]

only 13 now i seriosly doubt US can hold thier own vs the world

in a couple months those things will be gone by bombing

without bases i really doubt US can win

[Kamendex]

They have a surface-to-air missile system, duh.

Im not talking about regular bombers. Im talking about High Altitude super bombers, not just 1 but at least 5. They all can fly 10's of thousands of feet about the ship and drop multiple bombs without bieng detected by radar.

[Gooba]

Tell me how a carrier will evade a high level bomber?I am sure the US Navy would waste billions on a ship that can be taken down by 5 planes. They MUST have a way to defend against it even if we don't know it.

[pnoypridz]

ya i forgot about those stuff.....can the carrier hit something that thousand of feet above them accurately??

[Mecha-Kisame]

Im not talking about regular bombers. Im talking about High Altitude super bombers, not just 1 but at least 5. They all can fly 10's of thousands of feet about the ship and drop multiple bombs without bieng detected by radar.
AN/SPS-48 Air Search Radar is a medium-range, three-dimensional (height, range, and bearing) air search radar whose primary function is to provide target position data to a weapon system and a ship command and control system. It provides for detection of targets as high as 100,000 feet and over a distance of 2 to 200 miles.

Same source. Basically, boom.

[Zerkreaper]

usa would win becuz out military powers are amazin look wat they did to japan without the help of any allies :blink it was sad tho

[Kamendex]

AN/SPS-48 Air Search Radar is a medium-range, three-dimensional (height, range, and bearing) air search radar whose primary function is to provide target position data to a weapon system and a ship command and control system. It provides for detection of targets as high as 100,000 feet and over a distance of 2 to 200 miles.

Same source.

I know the radar your talking about, and that radar isnt designed for missles. Its designed to locate targets and be somewhat of an early detection system.

There are very few missles that can reach 100,000 feet

Edit-Again, thats a radar not a missle, you cant fire radars at enemies.

[Mecha-Kisame]

I know the radar your talking about, and that radar isnt designed for missles. Its designed to locate targets and be somewhat of an early detection system.

There are very few missles that can reach 100,000 feet
Though, it shows that we can track it. We know where it's at, even though our missles can't reach it our squadrons can.

Edit: I realize you can't fire radars at an enemy. My point was to prove that if it's there, we can find it. Taking it down is the easy part.

[Kamendex]

Though, it shows that we can track it. We know where it's at, even though our missles can't reach it our squadrons can.

If your talking about squadrons of interceptors then your mistaken lol.

Only other high level bombers can reach that altitude.

-but the US also has the high level bombers, and they have few expensive missles that can reach them.

[pnoypridz]

i really doubt that they can stop the bombers

so those 13 ships are going to be gone

the only way US would win is if they do genocide in every country they conquer to stop the uprising but i really doubt they can do that without nukes

[Mecha-Kisame]

If your talking about squadrons of interceptors then your mistaken lol.

Only other high level bombers can reach that altitude.

-but the US also has the high level bombers, and they have few expensive missles that can reach them.
I've been providing accurate specifications up to this point, and I'm even at work. It's time you did the same to prove your point.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

usa would win becuz out military powers are amazin look wat they did to japan without the help of any allies :blink it was sad tho

nah we had help from Great Britain. They did little though. They were almost invaded by Germany. Luckily they werent.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

Got wrapped up in admin stuff. One thing: There are no "high-level bombers" that can take out an Aircraft Carrier.

The only way to do it is to get a shitload of supersonic bombers (which only the Russians have) and throw them all at once against a carrier, and hope enough get through to blow it up. Either way, the US is down 1 carrier out of (19? I think) and you lose all your bombers.

[Kamendex]

I've been providing accurate specifications up to this point, and I'm even at work. It's time you did the same to prove your point.
F/A-22 Raptor

The US's #1 Interceptor/all around super plane can only reach...

Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m)

Oh and KnK the US has the B-1 Lancer, a supersonic bomber

edit-Every bomber in the US air force is super sonic almost

[Mecha-Kisame]

F/A-22 Raptor

The US's #1 Interceptor/all around super plane can only reach...

Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m)

Oh and KnK the US has the B-1 Lancer, a supersonic bomber
Any clue what the service ceiling of the enemy bombers would be? I'm googling without much success. :\

[Kamendex]

Any clue what the service ceiling of the enemy bombers would be? I'm googling without much success. :\

Enemy bombers will take a while, but the highest a Canadian bomber can reach is 77,000 feet. the XB-70 Valkyrie

[Gooba]

Service ceiling: 50,000 ftHigh level bombers: 10's of thousands of feet
Theres a 50% chance they can reach the bombers, what are the specs of the bombers?

EDIT: Damn it, you posted the same minute as me.

[Kamendex]

77,000 feet from the best i found, and 60ish for the rest

[Naruto Man]

Actually, China has one of the biggest Nuclear arsenal in the world, though not as big as U.S's though. China also has one of the worlds biggest army. Even though I love the U.S but I don't think they can take out the WHOLE world. Not at the moment at least.

Also, if the whole worlds against the U.S., you can kiss this great country good bye. All the worlds militia put together will make U.S. numbers look like a fluke.

U.S. is having a hard enough time dealing with communism, the world will absolutely DESTROY the U.S.

[Jeltz]

In a real modern war aircraft carriers are usless. They are too expensive to be of any use. They would be taken out before thye can be put into action. A nuclear missile or torpedo is much cheaper than the carrier. One hit with a nuclear torpedo and the carrier and its convoy is gone. Billions of dollars that could have been used for more useful things gone in one big boom.

EDIT: Actually China doesn't have that great nuclear arsenal. It's Russia that has the greatest number of nukes (10 000 or soemthing equally insane) second is the USA and far behind are France and China with much fewer nukes.

[hjkou]

the only people saying the US army would win are seriously just being patriotic.

just be honest and accept it, theres no way the usa could win against the rest of the world, sure your country may be the top in technology, and you have a great military force.

but to be outnumbered in the sense that your one country, and the world has hundreds? i dont even want to get into the statistics for how much military force the rest of the world would have compared to the usa.

think of it logically, game of chess, 20 pawns vs 1 pawn. strategy aint going to win you shit.

[Mith252000]

True but after the fall of the USSR, there was a cut in the number of nuclear arms though that doesn't really matter. Originally, USSR, 20,000 nuclear warheads, USA, 10,500 warheads. After end of USSR, Russia, 10,000 nuclear warheads(though there are rumours that there are more), USA, 11,000. Okay, you see, though USA has the technology and the world, the numbers, it is really a question of strategy. Either side could lose if one side has a great strategy. People, no matter how advanced we are, one must not forget the Art of War. So, anything can happen. :P BTW, Russia have stealth fighters too. Also, people, has anyone forgetten the Indians? :P

[Kamendex]

actually here are the numbers for nukes

United States 10,240 1945
Russia 8,400 1949
People's Republic of China 390 1964
France 350 1960
United Kingdom 200-300 1952
India 60-90 [1] 1974
Pakistan 30-52 [2] 1998
North Korea 0-18 [3] not yet?

The years are the years of first tests

[Jeltz]

Don't know wher eyou found those numbers Kamendex. All numbers I have seen has put Russia as number one, if you count the stockpiled ones. Myabe your numbers don't.

China: More than 100 warheads.
France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads.
Russia: 4,978 strategic warheads,1 approximately 3,500 operational tactical warheads, and more than 11,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.
United Kingdom: Less than 200 strategic warheads.
United States: 5,968 strategic warheads,1 more than 1,000 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.

My numbers comes from http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat.asp and should be current and reliable. Post your source if you disagree about the reliability of this.

[Arilou]

Seriously, discounting nuclear weapons there is just no way the US is going to win against the whole world. They lack the manpower to even successfully occupy the American continents, they lack the industrial capacity to keep up with the rest of the world, against a fully united world the US would stand no chance save pulling the Doomsday Card.

[hjkou]

i really dont get it, even if i did live in the US i'd seriously admit it. the usa cant win against the WORLD
china has the largest military force, india has the second largest
ok, lets see the arguments

USA will win with strategy: What, and the rest of the world lack strategic war knowledge? I really doubt Germany and Japan are exactly "dumb" when it comes to terms of war.

Quality over quantity: True. But ONLY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. It's common sense that in a 60:2 military force outnumberment, your not going to win.

America can bomb everyone with ease: Ok, so you took out the nukes from this matchup, and you say the USA has a definate advantage over the world in terms of bombs. Maybe, but maybe not.. I honestly dont think that North Korea has ONLY been producing nuclear warheads lately, and the same with all the other countries.
Japan is extremely far ahead in terms of modern technology, so why do you think they haven't advanced in warfare technology?

Aircraft: Saying the USA has the best aircraft tech in the world is probably a true fact, but saying that no other country can match up to it is biased opinion. We have NO information about the communist countries aircraft technology.. North Korea could have a fucking time machine for all we know.


If this was a war of patriotism, i'd have to hand it to america :)

But in a war, the reality is, no. Just no way.

[Jeltz]

You are correct Arilou. Even if the American army is as superior as some sayit would sitll lose against superior numebers. They would lose becuase of lacking production capacity just like Germany lost WW2 but only with an even bigger differnce in manpower.

EDIT: If quality always won over quantity we would all live in Germany or Japan now.

And if the USA pulled the Doomsday Card Russia could do the samethign and the survivors would get to live in a geniune postapocalyptic enviroment, with the previously most powerful nations being the worst devestated. Then moving to Africa could be a good idea.

[metronomy]

America may have the technology... but that dosent mean everything!

*cough*vietnam*cough*

the British have the best special forces in the world i.e the SAS... and id go out on a whim here and say that australia have the best army... jeez them guys have a waiting list for you to actually be able to get in

[Mith252000]

Err, has anyone here forget how technologically advance Israel is? They are believed to have nukes and also some technology we have yet to see. :P

[Arilou]

I think a guy named Zhukov proved that quality doesen't always win over quantity, not when the latter is properly deployed.

Err, has anyone here forget how technologically advance Israel is? They are believed to have nukes and also some technology we have yet to see.

Israel's nukes is probably the worst-kept "secret" in the world. They also have something like the 4th largest airforce in the world IIRC (after US, Russia, UK)

But basically, in the end it comes up to numbers. A US soldier, no matter how well-trained, is as susceptible to a bullet as anyone else. And if there are, say, 30 soldiers arrayed against him? Well...

[junidaime]

Air and Naval power are the fulcrum of victory; the overwhelming avantage the US Air Force and the US Navy have over the rest of the world means that only the Canadians could ever strike at US soil, and the Canadians wouldn't live long, especially right next door.

The US takes it, because it would be impossible for China or anyone to invade or bomb the US mainland. On the other hand, the US can drop any amount of bombs anywhere in the world and take minimal casulties.

Air power and naval blockades win the day.


there would be no need to invade. Nukes!! the US is not the only country that has them (i.e Russia, EU, China, India, etc). They could just bomb the hell out of us and then send massive armies out of China and India to finish us off.

[Donkey Show]

The state of California would beat any other country on the planet one-on-one.

I'm so glad you own my soul and loins, KnK!!! Don't you know that Skynet will destroy all of you, silly people? :confused :laugh

A lot of people seem to take the fact that the US isn't doing so well in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now... think about what exactly happened. Were we trying to destroy these places. No. Can we destroy these places, oh hell yes, but that wasn't the goal. Insurgents here and there are a pain in the ass just because it's hard to keep up security measures against a technically "invisble" menace. It wouldn't be any different if Britain was the main force instead of the US. They'd still be facing the same issues. But this thread is about all out war, not terrorism.

If the world decided to say "Fuck You" to the US right now, you think a majority of citizens would cower? Hell no. Media is media and it hypes up a lot of crap that our right to free speech allows us to say. But it would basically mean that the world is going to try to come into your home, kill your family before your eyes, and leave you for dead after that. I doubt any American would take that, let alone anyone else in the world.

(BTW, don't take that seriously as I love all of you dirty bastards)

Another question I want to ask is this. In this battle, is the world allying with each other to take on the US? If that's the case, I'm still sticking to the fact that the US has a slight margin of victory. We may be wearing thin, but the forces behind the lines like myself right now can easily pick up an M16, M4, Mk 19, M249, or whatever and unleash hell. I'm a pacifist at heart, but threaten my life, friends, and country and I'll snipe you like Legolas through a rave in Ibiza. Patriotism may not be counted into the whole scheme of things, but it's there and is a huge part of what drives us to win, not just as military members, but as Americans. (which also makes us arrogant, but that's just a given ^^)

As for the air superiority, I still think the US would edge out with that. It isn't just about bombers and what not. If Bush wanted to, all he'd have to do is point his finger at Beijing on a map, and in 30 or minutes or less... BAM, hit with an ICBM and then some.

If the entire world was against each other? Sorry, US hands down.

We also have rapid deployable bases in key areas of the world. Even though I'm based in Germany, I'm pretty confident we can handle them. Every one here is considered deployable so our readiness is high if anything were to occur. Second, Germany's economy, even though it doesn't seem like it, is pretty dependant of the US bases. A lot of their local nationals work for the military, and if we were to just stop them from working, down goes their already shitty economy down the drain.

And what about "hidden" war potentials of communist countries? That's a minor fact as cells around the world give that information to the Pentagon. We know, but why would we show all our cards?

Now on a lighter note...

North Korea... they'll all die of nuclear radiation for all I care. :P j/k But I'll tell you what, Korean soldiers (South or North) are some crazy bastards.

The JSDF is very high tech, but I don't expect an Evangelion or a load of Gundams air dropping over Texas. XD

If it came down to Britain, all I can hope for is to send them lots of beer, cider, and liquor, hoping that they are really drunk by the time it's time to fight. All the British soldiers I've partied with are all alcoholics. XD

In the end, it does all boil down to strategy, which the United States has plenty of. A real war time situation is something the US can handle. Am I disregarding the entire world's power? No, because that would be too stupid. But we train with a majority of the world's military as well, so saying we can't fight them with our numbers is an understatement. Like I said before, if the US won, it'd only be by a small margin, but in this battle, a win is a win.

As for myself being patriotic in my answer, fuck yeah I am. I'm only in the US Army! ^^

And if it came down to it, my bukkake would engulf the world like it was nothing. Dinner time, biatches. :confused ^^ But I still love y'all.

[metronomy]

I'm a pacifist at heart, but threaten my life, friends, and country and I'll snipe you like Legolas through a rave in Ibiza.

:amuse



If it came down to Britain, all I can hope for is to send them lots of beer, cider, and liquor, hoping that they are really drunk by the time it's time to fight. All the British soldiers I've partied with are all alcoholics. XD

^ tell me about it.. having grown up in the british army, all the dads were always drunk... infact my dad still is, and he left the army about 7 years ago

[Donkey Show]

I still slightly remember partying with those guys in Bosnia. Ugh, they drank me under the table and they were just "buzzing."

Maybe we should change the conditions to what country's military can drink the most?

If that's the case, I'd give it to the British or the Russians... I wasn't really convinced about their ability to down vodka, but good lord do they drink it like water. >.<

[junidaime]

I'm so glad you own my soul and loins, KnK!!! Don't you know that Skynet will destroy all of you, silly people? :confused :laugh

A lot of people seem to take the fact that the US isn't doing so well in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now... think about what exactly happened. Were we trying to destroy these places. No. Can we destroy these places, oh hell yes, but that wasn't the goal. Insurgents here and there are a pain in the ass just because it's hard to keep up security measures against a technically "invisble" menace. It wouldn't be any different if Britain was the main force instead of the US. They'd still be facing the same issues. But this thread is about all out war, not terrorism.

If the world decided to say "Fuck You" to the US right now, you think a majority of citizens would cower? Hell no. Media is media and it hypes up a lot of crap that our right to free speech allows us to say. But it would basically mean that the world is going to try to come into your home, kill your family before your eyes, and leave you for dead after that. I doubt any American would take that, let alone anyone else in the world.

(BTW, don't take that seriously as I love all of you dirty bastards)

Another question I want to ask is this. In this battle, is the world allying with each other to take on the US? If that's the case, I'm still sticking to the fact that the US has a slight margin of victory. We may be wearing thin, but the forces behind the lines like myself right now can easily pick up an M16, M4, Mk 19, M249, or whatever and unleash hell. I'm a pacifist at heart, but threaten my life, friends, and country and I'll snipe you like Legolas through a rave in Ibiza. Patriotism may not be counted into the whole scheme of things, but it's there and is a huge part of what drives us to win, not just as military members, but as Americans. (which also makes us arrogant, but that's just a given ^^)

As for the air superiority, I still think the US would edge out with that. It isn't just about bombers and what not. If Bush wanted to, all he'd have to do is point his finger at Beijing on a map, and in 30 or minutes or less... BAM, hit with an ICBM and then some.

If the entire world was against each other? Sorry, US hands down.

We also have rapid deployable bases in key areas of the world. Even though I'm based in Germany, I'm pretty confident we can handle them. Every one here is considered deployable so our readiness is high if anything were to occur. Second, Germany's economy, even though it doesn't seem like it, is pretty dependant of the US bases. A lot of their local nationals work for the military, and if we were to just stop them from working, down goes their already shitty economy down the drain.

And what about "hidden" war potentials of communist countries? That's a minor fact as cells around the world give that information to the Pentagon. We know, but why would we show all our cards?

Now on a lighter note...

North Korea... they'll all die of nuclear radiation for all I care. :P j/k But I'll tell you what, Korean soldiers (South or North) are some crazy bastards.

The JSDF is very high tech, but I don't expect an Evangelion or a load of Gundams air dropping over Texas. XD

If it came down to Britain, all I can hope for is to send them lots of beer, cider, and liquor, hoping that they are really drunk by the time it's time to fight. All the British soldiers I've partied with are all alcoholics. XD

In the end, it does all boil down to strategy, which the United States has plenty of. A real war time situation is something the US can handle. Am I disregarding the entire world's power? No, because that would be too stupid. But we train with a majority of the world's military as well, so saying we can't fight them with our numbers is an understatement. Like I said before, if the US won, it'd only be by a small margin, but in this battle, a win is a win.

As for myself being patriotic in my answer, fuck yeah I am. I'm only in the US Army! ^^

And if it came down to it, my bukkake would engulf the world like it was nothing. Dinner time, biatches. :confused ^^ But I still love y'all.


you bring up very good points DS.

if this is the world Allied against us then we have very little chance...unless the old addage necessity is the mother of invention" holds true and the US creates some doomsday weapon to wipe out 89% (random percentage number folks) of the world population.

if, however, it is the world attacking us and yet not coordinated with each other we would have a better chance ( not much better but one can still hope).

the only trump card I see for the US is the secret virus in area 51 called BGB*. That would definitely handle much of the world.


*if you don't know what BGB is...visit the BLACK GAI FC to find out.

[metronomy]

I still slightly remember partying with those guys in Bosnia. Ugh, they drank me under the table and they were just "buzzing."

Maybe we should change the conditions to what country's military can drink the most?

If that's the case, I'd give it to the British or the Russians... I wasn't really convinced about their ability to down vodka, but good lord do they drink it like water. >.<

zOMG the russians have vodka with there cereal instead of milk! i have a russian friend who goes to my uni.... he drinks vodka straight out of some massive gourd lol

[Mith252000]

Actually, Antrax would be just fine. However, I think this thread says a war with conventional weapons so no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons used. So, don't think that virus counts, junidaime. :P

[Donkey Show]

if, however, it is the world attacking us and yet not coordinated with each other we would have a better chance ( not much better but one can still hope).
More than likely, (and of course hopefully) it would be a pick and choose war from there. ^^


the only trump card I see for the US is the secret virus in area 51 called BGB*. That would definitely handle much of the world.

*if you don't know what BGB is...visit the BLACK GAI FC to find out.

It's more of a man-made non CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear) weapon.

References to BGB...
reference 1 (http://forums.narutofan.com/showpost.php?p=971020&postcount=1035)
reference 2 (http://forums.narutofan.com/showpost.php?p=973765&postcount=1052)
reference 3 (http://forums.narutofan.com/showpost.php?p=974416&postcount=1056)

Power in biblical proportions... :amazed


zOMG the russians have vodka with there cereal instead of milk! i have a russian friend who goes to my uni.... he drinks vodka straight out of some massive gourd lol

LOL, I wouldn't be surprised. Imagine trying to play tetris drunk!!! I bet you they're masters of that. >.< That's where their war strategy comes from (which in a sense is true, because Tetris was developed to help work the mind by offering quick complex problems for military members to solve o.0 )

^^

Isn't it interesting how BG somehow gets involved? ALL HAIL!!!

[Narrondi]

USA might be able to keep a defence from beeing attacked by the whole world but, it would be impossible to try to attack the entire world at the same time. They would have to go in with massive armyes at strategic possions and would suffer great losses there. The biggest problem would be that they would have to keep a good offence and a good defence and that would not be possible.

[CrazyMoronX]

Ok, non-nuclear war... that would still leave the biological weapons, which in many respects is still as devestating or even more so than a nuclear weapon. Also chemical weapons.. Japan has the invisibilty cloak, it's not perfect, but they have it, if you don't believe me, look at this article: http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html or if you don't trust that site, maybe you'll trust Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/2003/inventions/invinvisible.html
Assuming they have this, perhaps America's military has also developed, or blatantly stole and developed the technology further... maybe maybe not, if we did have it, it would be a big boost in stealth.

Anyways... I'm sure with enough strategy and tactics, USA could take this war, but it's an uphill battle, and that's one steep hill. We'd have to take an aggressive stance, and use biological and chemical weapons in well placed areas to take this.

[Arilou]

Ok, non-nuclear war... that would still leave the biological weapons, which in many respects is still as devestating or even more so than a nuclear weapon. Also chemical weapons.. Japan has the invisibilty cloak, it's not perfect, but they have it, if you don't believe me, look at this article: http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html or if you don't trust that site, maybe you'll trust Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/2003/inventions/invinvisible.html
Assuming they have this, perhaps America's military has also developed, or blatantly stole and developed the technology further... maybe maybe not, if we did have it, it would be a big boost in stealth.

Anyways... I'm sure with enough strategy and tactics, USA could take this war, but it's an uphill battle, and that's one steep hill. We'd have to take an aggressive stance, and use biological and chemical weapons in well placed areas to take this.

Dude, even with biological weapons... Do you think anything would prevent someone from using it on the US as well? (Yes, there are delivery systems capable of doing that) Unless the ROTW just goes dumb as a rock the US loses. Badly. There's just no way 300 million can beat the other 6 billion people on the planet. Seriously, while a cloaking field looks nifty on paper in order for it to be useful it has to be A) developed to where it can be mass-produced and B) be reliable. The Germans had much better tanks than the Russians in WWII, but the russians knew what they were doing, their tanks didn't break down and they where fast to build. Guess who won the Great Patriotic War?

[Nara_Shikamaru246]

Even if the US had all this technology and weapons, and the rest of the world were using shovels and pickaxes the world would still win by shear number. The US would probably run out of ammo/bombs/gas eventually too.

[CrazyMoronX]

I'm not saying it's likely the US would win against the entire world, what I am saying though, with enough strategy and tactics, we could win. But just about any country as strong as US or close to it, would be able to take on the world with enough strategy and tactics. We could unleash smallpox, and other vast amounts of killer viruses and plagues, and just hide underground until everyone dies, or enough people die and are weakened by the plagues and viruses to come back up and kill everyone. With the right strategy and tactical know-how, small numbers can take out very large numbers.

[CoolBuu]

The world. This presumption is not made with any inkling as to the military power of any nation in question, but entirely on the idea that the US has no control over oil and many other essential supplies that would be needed to wage such a large non-nuclear war. Sure we have a gigantic arsenal, but we don't have enough gas to launch it all :laugh


The United States has untapped oil reserves... :)

[Asmodeus]

Most of the assumptions on this thread are that the entire world would essentially unite to take down the United States.

Now look at North Korea. If world pandemonium broke out, do you really think they would ally? You strike when the time is right..if the U.S. was causing world wide havoc, that is the perfect opprotunity to launch an attack of your own.

If the entire world United against the United States, we (the U.S.) would lose. It's a numbers game, and I just don't think we have the numbers to justify it. However, in order for the U.S. to lose, France, Germany, Russia, North Korea, China, Britain, Spain, Italy, Iran, India, and Israel would all have to ally. If they weren't all on the same side, they don't have the military capability to defeat the U.S.

Now look at that roster I just gave you. For anybody who knows anything about world politics...do you think there is anything on the face of this Earth that would get those countries to ally with each other? You are looking at almost a three sided war between those countries alone if war broke out. You also have to play the location game. The U.S. could conquer all of the Western Hemisphere with little trouble. There isn't any military power here besides us, and once that was in place, we would already own half the world, quite literally.

From there on it's the exploiting resources game. Even if the United States did conquer the Western Hemisphere and made them American citizens, their would be revolts. However, if their way of life improved, and tneir standard of living came up, don't you think that they would be more inclined to help? Venezula has large amount of oil under it's soil, as does Mexico and Canada. You would have to play it like Chess, stratedgy while the whole time taking one piece at a time. It wouldn't happen overnight.

Africa has no military power, and is a non-factor in the equation. But over 1 billion people live in Africa, so, the World Deficet has been cut from 6 to around 4.8 billion people. Even with that, India has a large military, yes, but India doesn't have the resources to arm its 1 billion citizens. So, cut their number to 1 fifth, which includes the military, b/c that is about all they would be able to arm properly. That another 800 million people off. So it's now around 4 billion against the United States. That's still quite a bit.

Then you have China, with it's 1.2 billion citizens. The Chinese have a very fierce fighting philophosy, and the World's Largest military. However, they are decades behind the United States. I have family that does military work (he works on and designs weapon assemblies on Apache helicopters), and he says the equipment that most citizens in the U.S. know about is around 20 years old. So with that in mind, China is around 30 years behind us technology wise. And they once again will run into the issue of armament. They don't have the resources to arm a billion people. Once again, you have to cut away numbers from that. The peasants in China can't invade the U.S., so they are nonfactors. Without armaments or ability to actually attack, you cut away around...let's say 500 million Chinese (that's probably too low, but better safe than sorry, lol). That takes the population to around 3.5 billion people.

Europe will have the technology, and since Russia is part of Europe (a piece of it, anyway), if they allied, Europe would have plenty of resources to arm everyone that lives there. But this is also assuming they will ally, or that other incontinental wars won't be breaking out.

At this point, if the entire world allies against the United States, we have a count of about 300 million vs. 3.5 billion, which is roughly 11:1. That's pretty harsh, but when you add that no other countries in the world have a comparable Air Force or Navy when next to the U.S., some of the numbers aren't as important. An undetected B-52 bomber has the capabbility to carpet bomb an entire city. Aircraft carriers, at least most of the newer ones, run off of nuclear power (how many people here knew that?), so they can run for incredible amounts of time without aid. With these odds, victory still is a slim margain. Fodd for the U.S. isn't a problem, as the Great Plains and feed our entire country. The only thing that could defeat the U.S. straight up is a direct attack on the country itself, and the only countries in the world close enough to do that wouldn't have the military power to even jokingly attempt it.

With all of this said and done, it depends on how cruel we are willing to be. Aircraft carriers can send cruise missles that would level cities, and ICBMs can hit countries from thousands of miles away. If you take the nukes out of them and replace them with conventional cruise missiles, we could technically destroy most of Europe without ever leaving North America. If any country in the world has the potential to kill everyone on the face of the planet, even without nukes, it's the United States. The rest of it would depend on the world climate. If the ENTIRE globe with all of the countries I mentioned allied against us..we would probably lose. I, personally, wouldn't be around to see that. Cocky as we are, most U.S. citizens are extremely patriotic, and any direct assault on the U.S. would be taken personal. Most U.S. citizens would fight to the end to protect their country rather than surrender..or may that's just me, I don't know.

However, if U.S. assaults made the entire globe turn to war, against the U.S. and against each other, it turns into a free for all, which in that case, yeah, the U.S. would mop up. I think DS already mentioned this, but if the U.S. had wanted to DESTROY, not INVADE Iraq or Vietnam, we could have done so easily. If the world all went up in war, the U.S. would come out on top.

That's assuming we didn' tuse nukes. If we did...well, we'd turn the whole world into Kansas (flat and devoid of life). And no one wants that, do they?

[CrazyMoronX]

I was under the impression the premise of the thread was everyone allies against USA, obviously there is no real world situation that would pit the entire world against the USA. It's just a hypothetical "what if" thread, and shouldn't be bombarded with "well that just wouldn't happen" arguments. Superman vs Goku would never happen since they are both good guys, but no matter how someone tries to set that up as a hypothetical, someone ALWAYS comes in and says something stupid like "oh they would never fight!"

[Cupboards]

America would get it's ass kicked by the rest of the world.. Because >>

If they leave their borders they are sitting ducks to missiles and submarines etc..
If they stick on their own turf kamikaze mission would keep hitting them thus deplete their resources and other vital points..

another thing..

Children and 20% of the Women and Men in America won't fight because they are weak or don't want to fight.. If this was the same case with the rest of the world America is simply outnumberd..

Eventually the American population will become frightend and give up on fighting..
The brave and hardend American soldiers will all perish in endless skirmishes and the Remaining 20% of the American people will be murderd, raped deported to the north pole what ever..

In my opinion I think only Canada and South America are needed to Conquer the U.S.A

Conclusion the U.S.A versus the World is a bad idea..

[Nara_Shikamaru246]

Except for about 10% of the US population, who are either very patriotic in a stupid way, everyone in the US would piss their pants and run away when they hear that they will have to fight an army of 6billion.

[Hangatýr]

America would get it's ass kicked by the rest of the world.. Because >>

If they leave their borders they are sitting ducks to missiles and submarines etc..
If they stick on their own turf kamikaze mission would keep hitting them thus deplete their resources and other vital points..

another thing..

Children and 20% of the Women and Men in America won't fight because they are weak or don't want to fight.. If this was the same case with the rest of the world America is simply outnumberd..

Eventually the American population will become frightend and give up on fighting..
The brave and hardend American soldiers will all perish in endless skirmishes and the Remaining 20% of the American people will be murderd, raped deported to the north pole what ever..

In my opinion I think only Canada and South America are needed to Conquer the U.S.A

Conclusion the U.S.A versus the World is a bad idea..

And then Dutchland will rule supreme over this world! We will empeach the adult weakling Harry Potter look-a-like and make Eddie Van Halen president! So we can rock into a new era xD -headbangs-

[Contaro]

Sigh...

I'll clear up a few points before I give my opinions:

Canadian/Mexican oil reserves compared to Saudi Oile reserves are based on oil reserves that can be extracted at a 'reasonable' cost, given the current cost of oil. Obviously, this wouldn't be a great concern to the US in this scenario, who would be without access to the cheaply pumpable oil fields of the Persian Gulf. Also, Venezuela is directly south of the US, a short hop across the Carribean, and is an OPEC producing country. Canada actually has, IIRC, the largest overall oil deposits of any nation if you don't care about the cost of pumping it. Good news for our northern neighbors whenever the Middle East runs dry, I suppose.

You can kill carriers with high altitude bombers Basically, this was an area that was an arms race in the Cold War between the US and the Soviets. Basically, you can kill a US carrier group, but only if you want to gut your air force. The Russians already drew down this part of their air force, but the US didn't draw down their fleet AA. On the other hand, you could replace the Russian component with other countries' jets armed with Exocet or similar good antiship missiles, but they're closer-range weapons than the Shipwrecks the Russians were going to use. In any case, tangling with US carrier groups in a conventional war is going to be awesomely expensive in terms of bombers in blue-water engagements.

For purposes of my opinion, I'm reiterating that there are NO wmd's used and NO partisan warfare behind the lines - no guerrillas, etc. This was the original 'rules' for this contest.

Under those conditions, the US wins, and here's why:

1) The US can and would seize Canada and Mexico without much problem (remember, no partisan warfare behind the lines, and neither country is going to be able to stop the US from rolling over their borders.

2) Several countries will be severely messed up because they have large concentrations of US troops already deployed within their borders, such as in Europe, S. Korea, the Middle East, etc. Given the rule of 'no partisan warfare', these areas will be either the site of the mother of all fights (Korea, Europe, Japan) or the US will actually snag some areas (the Middle East). In any case, these overseas US forces will put a serious hurt on several coutnries and complicate matters greatly.

3) The US will be better off on strategic materials; US naval power, surface and submarine, is strong enough to basically strangle the world's oil supplies until overland supply routes can be built from the Mideast States to the Mediterranean, which should be reasonably US-free except for the odd submarine.

Basically speaking, it all comes down to the fact that the other countries can't effectively come to the western hemisphere without a navy, and will be crippled militarily until strategic stores of oil are reached. In the early phase of the conflict - the first year or two - the US will overrun the Western Hemisphere (remember, no partisan warfare!), consolidate, and expand the military. The US is, with the addition of Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada to its own oil production, self-sufficient in that area; it is protected from disabling strikes against its industry, for the most part (although Russian, Israeli, and British submarines will conduct cruise-missile raids) while its force projection allows for significant destruction of industrial assets overseas.

It's basically a very long, very bloody fight, but the US would win - without nuclear weapons in play or the ability to take US air and sea power off the table, the outcome really isn't in doubt under the highly unrealistic rules posited in this thread.

In reality, of course, the outcome is well known - total global annihilation of civilization via full nuclear exchange.

[D-Boy]

First off I'd just like to say General Montgomery = a damn hero of WW2 the British helped out just as much as anyone else.


Anyway just thought u guys might wanna see the strength of the RAF if we can get together the rest of the world air force statistics then we can compare them properly.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/strength.html

[Nara_Shikamaru246]

Sigh...

I'll clear up a few points before I give my opinions:

Canadian/Mexican oil reserves compared to Saudi Oile reserves are based on oil reserves that can be extracted at a 'reasonable' cost, given the current cost of oil. Obviously, this wouldn't be a great concern to the US in this scenario, who would be without access to the cheaply pumpable oil fields of the Persian Gulf. Also, Venezuela is directly south of the US, a short hop across the Carribean, and is an OPEC producing country. Canada actually has, IIRC, the largest overall oil deposits of any nation if you don't care about the cost of pumping it. Good news for our northern neighbors whenever the Middle East runs dry, I suppose.

You can kill carriers with high altitude bombers Basically, this was an area that was an arms race in the Cold War between the US and the Soviets. Basically, you can kill a US carrier group, but only if you want to gut your air force. The Russians already drew down this part of their air force, but the US didn't draw down their fleet AA. On the other hand, you could replace the Russian component with other countries' jets armed with Exocet or similar good antiship missiles, but they're closer-range weapons than the Shipwrecks the Russians were going to use. In any case, tangling with US carrier groups in a conventional war is going to be awesomely expensive in terms of bombers in blue-water engagements.

For purposes of my opinion, I'm reiterating that there are NO wmd's used and NO partisan warfare behind the lines - no guerrillas, etc. This was the original 'rules' for this contest.

Under those conditions, the US wins, and here's why:

1) The US can and would seize Canada and Mexico without much problem (remember, no partisan warfare behind the lines, and neither country is going to be able to stop the US from rolling over their borders.

2) Several countries will be severely messed up because they have large concentrations of US troops already deployed within their borders, such as in Europe, S. Korea, the Middle East, etc. Given the rule of 'no partisan warfare', these areas will be either the site of the mother of all fights (Korea, Europe, Japan) or the US will actually snag some areas (the Middle East). In any case, these overseas US forces will put a serious hurt on several coutnries and complicate matters greatly.

3) The US will be better off on strategic materials; US naval power, surface and submarine, is strong enough to basically strangle the world's oil supplies until overland supply routes can be built from the Mideast States to the Mediterranean, which should be reasonably US-free except for the odd submarine.

Basically speaking, it all comes down to the fact that the other countries can't effectively come to the western hemisphere without a navy, and will be crippled militarily until strategic stores of oil are reached. In the early phase of the conflict - the first year or two - the US will overrun the Western Hemisphere (remember, no partisan warfare!), consolidate, and expand the military. The US is, with the addition of Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada to its own oil production, self-sufficient in that area; it is protected from disabling strikes against its industry, for the most part (although Russian, Israeli, and British submarines will conduct cruise-missile raids) while its force projection allows for significant destruction of industrial assets overseas.

It's basically a very long, very bloody fight, but the US would win - without nuclear weapons in play or the ability to take US air and sea power off the table, the outcome really isn't in doubt under the highly unrealistic rules posited in this thread.

In reality, of course, the outcome is well known - total global annihilation of civilization via full nuclear exchange.

Really easy way to stop US from using the oil reserves of other nations. Scorched Earth Policy! All Canada and Mexico needs to do is burn up their oil reserves if they about to lose, it isn't like it'll only take the US a day to take out Canada and Mexico since it'll take a while to manuever all the troops and oil burns fast. To deal with the US's own oil reserve something called espionage. The world could send spys into US to commit arson and burn their oil reserves down to the ground.

[Naruto Man]

Umm, if the world is at war with U.S., the international sea policy probably wouldn't apply so they would get blown out of the water non-stop since they would be surrounded. Plus U.S would fall economically like crazy if they disconnect themselves from the world, they can't recieve products they need, also they would lack the supplies in it's own countries.

U.S. is great and all but there is a line between patriotic and idiotic.

[Kalmah]

The world. This presumption is not made with any inkling as to the military power of any nation in question, but entirely on the idea that the US has no control over oil and many other essential supplies that would be needed to wage such a large non-nuclear war. Sure we have a gigantic arsenal, but we don't have enough gas to launch it all :laugh

Exactly, even tho I am an American I have to admit it. We import about 75% of our goods.... We cannot even survive w/o the other countries..... :oh

[kumagoro_usagi]

And they say Naruto threads aren't educational...

[Jeltz]

Yeah if Canda burned their oil and blew up their iron mines then the USA would quite soon run low on resources. The USA import most of their steel. This owuldn't be a militay war. The outcome would be economical and there the USA would lose big time.

superioir numbers and resources > superior army and technology

[theoneandonly]

The rest of the world of course!

[Arilou]

I'm not saying it's likely the US would win against the entire world, what I am saying though, with enough strategy and tactics, we could win. But just about any country as strong as US or close to it, would be able to take on the world with enough strategy and tactics. We could unleash smallpox, and other vast amounts of killer viruses and plagues, and just hide underground until everyone dies, or enough people die and are weakened by the plagues and viruses to come back up and kill everyone. With the right strategy and tactical know-how, small numbers can take out very large numbers.

Yes, but, but the larger the numbers involved the greater the discrepancy (because a kind of law of averages kicks in, it's probably easier for 1 people to beat 10 than for 100,000 to beat 1 million) Sure, smallpox would wreak havoc with the world, but there is nothing protecting the US populace from the same, and the world can afford to lose 30 people for every US citizen.

Canadian/Mexican oil reserves compared to Saudi Oile reserves are based on oil reserves that can be extracted at a 'reasonable' cost, given the current cost of oil. Obviously, this wouldn't be a great concern to the US in this scenario, who would be without access to the cheaply pumpable oil fields of the Persian Gulf. Also, Venezuela is directly south of the US, a short hop across the Carribean, and is an OPEC producing country. Canada actually has, IIRC, the largest overall oil deposits of any nation if you don't care about the cost of pumping it. Good news for our northern neighbors whenever the Middle East runs dry, I suppose.

The US would however have to divert significant resources to exploiting these oil-fields. You can actually run the "bare neccessities" pretty much on synthethic oil, but it is expensive and complicated, which means less stuff can be used for tanks & planes.

You can kill carriers with high altitude bombers Basically, this was an area that was an arms race in the Cold War between the US and the Soviets. Basically, you can kill a US carrier group, but only if you want to gut your air force. The Russians already drew down this part of their air force, but the US didn't draw down their fleet AA. On the other hand, you could replace the Russian component with other countries' jets armed with Exocet or similar good antiship missiles, but they're closer-range weapons than the Shipwrecks the Russians were going to use. In any case, tangling with US carrier groups in a conventional war is going to be awesomely expensive in terms of bombers in blue-water engagements.

There are other ways though, submarines, night attacks etc. etc. Costly, yes, but not impossible (not to mention land-based missiles and such) Basically it comes down to that cost matters for the US but not for the ROTW....

For purposes of my opinion, I'm reiterating that there are NO wmd's used and NO partisan warfare behind the lines - no guerrillas, etc. This was the original 'rules' for this contest.

No, that was not the rules. The rules where "conventional war and political support is irrelevant", by this it is implied that everyone's population will be 100% behind the leadership, the result would be increase in partisan warfare, not reverse. (No partisan warfare also renders the entire idea moot even as a theoretical excercise)

2) Several countries will be severely messed up because they have large concentrations of US troops already deployed within their borders, such as in Europe, S. Korea, the Middle East, etc. Given the rule of 'no partisan warfare', these areas will be either the site of the mother of all fights (Korea, Europe, Japan) or the US will actually snag some areas (the Middle East). In any case, these overseas US forces will put a serious hurt on several coutnries and complicate matters greatly.

This comes down to "Who strikes first"? The US could cause signifcant damage if they where the aggressors, conversely a large portion of US assets based abroad could probably be neutralized by a sneak attack.

3) The US will be better off on strategic materials; US naval power, surface and submarine, is strong enough to basically strangle the world's oil supplies until overland supply routes can be built from the Mideast States to the Mediterranean, which should be reasonably US-free except for the odd submarine.

Indeed, the US navy is probably the US' strongest asset, however, there is probably only a matter of time until the world's production of ships simply swamps the US'.

It's basically a very long, very bloody fight, but the US would win - without nuclear weapons in play or the ability to take US air and sea power off the table, the outcome really isn't in doubt under the highly unrealistic rules posited in this thread.

Even if you assume only the "conventional" forces in question fight (IE: no civilian uprising) it would be easy for the south american militaries to simply withdraw into the jungle, forcing the US to either station huge (and I'm talking huge here) amounts of troops to fend them off or basically have to give SA up. (airforce, the US primary asset, is notoriously unreliable in jungles)

[hjkou]

U.S. is great and all but there is a line between patriotic and idiotic.

bah, this guy is smart
he summed up my 2 long posts into one line ;p this thread shouldnt even exist

[SSJ3Naruto]

I got a better 1, the u.s.a v our (british) old empire but with todays technoloy

but nowa days it would just take britain ,russia and china to beat the US, dont forget the u.k has the best tank in the world

[LordStronghold]

Russia + China is enough to stop all US force
China may have a very large army but their technology suck compared to the United States. Strategy could easily overwhelm China

Watch China military technology today & You dont going to say that again.


But... I agree with, To win China must use strategy mainly.
But When China + Russia = Outnumber + Better strategy plan & technology
Rest of the World will easily win
[ But the hardest thing is make China & Russia work together ]



but nowa days it would just take britain ,russia and china to beat the US, dont forget the u.k has the best tank in the world

I dont know that before, What those tank name?

The Best tank i know is...
US - M1A2 Abrams [maybe the best tank in the world]
German - Leopard
Russia - T90


*d*mn! I was made too many wrong typing in this post :notrust

[Kamendex]

I live in the US and I like it, but even I know that they US cant beat the whole world, its just insane.

[EvilMoogle]

Sigh...
1) The US can and would seize Canada and Mexico without much problem (remember, no partisan warfare behind the lines, and neither country is going to be able to stop the US from rolling over their borders.


Of course, in a strategic US versus the world, the first logical step would be for Canada and Mexico to destroy their production facilities. In fact, rather than putting up a token resistance at the main Canada-US border, I'd say Canada would be better off attacking Alaska and razing as they go.

Sure the US could rebuild the production in time, but this would waste valuible time and manpower (not to mention oil, which would become important later).


2) Several countries will be severely messed up because they have large concentrations of US troops already deployed within their borders, such as in Europe, S. Korea, the Middle East, etc. Given the rule of 'no partisan warfare', these areas will be either the site of the mother of all fights (Korea, Europe, Japan) or the US will actually snag some areas (the Middle East). In any case, these overseas US forces will put a serious hurt on several coutnries and complicate matters greatly.

Troops in Europe are mostly in Germany and eastern europe. Though I agree this would be a hotspot, the ones in Germany would fall quickly, and the ones in Eastern Europe would be in a pincer between Europe and Russia.

The Middle East is somewhat more complex, seeing as we're ruling out gurrillia warfare. Lets look at it this way though, lets assume each country in the middle east institutes a 100% draft of men and women ages 15 to 50, and arms them with knives sticks and pichforks. Might not be enough to win against the soldiers in the country, but it's sure going to make for a headache for the next few weeks. At the very least the US isn't going to be getting any more oil from the ME for a little while. And of course, if it starts to look like a losing battle there's always the "cut and run" burn everything strategy.

Though you have to remember the ME has land access from Europe (shortly), Russia, East Asia and Africa. And it's safe to assume that they'll all want in on this fight. Hell, India alone working with Pakastan could send 400-500 million drafted soldiers up there. They might not have signifigant weapons but just how many rounds of ammo does the US have in the area?


3) The US will be better off on strategic materials; US naval power, surface and submarine, is strong enough to basically strangle the world's oil supplies until overland supply routes can be built from the Mideast States to the Mediterranean, which should be reasonably US-free except for the odd submarine.

The US _might_ have a carrier in position in Europe, I'm not sure exactly where they're all at at the moment. As soon as Germany is stablized western Europe is going to crush any navel presence in the area. The UK alone has the second biggest air force in the world, and a good chunk of the US Air Force is going to be busy elsewhere -- or even if it isn't they won't have any place to launch from. The US doesn't have that many planes that can launch from home soil and strike in Europe (and get back to land). Any bases left in Eastern Europe will be primary targets pretty quick.

Basically speaking, it all comes down to the fact that the other countries can't effectively come to the western hemisphere without a navy, and will be crippled militarily until strategic stores of oil are reached. In the early phase of the conflict - the first year or two - the US will overrun the Western Hemisphere (remember, no partisan warfare!), consolidate, and expand the military. The US is, with the addition of Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada to its own oil production, self-sufficient in that area; it is protected from disabling strikes against its industry, for the most part (although Russian, Israeli, and British submarines will conduct cruise-missile raids) while its force projection allows for significant destruction of industrial assets overseas.

It's basically a very long, very bloody fight, but the US would win - without nuclear weapons in play or the ability to take US air and sea power off the table, the outcome really isn't in doubt under the highly unrealistic rules posited in this thread.

In reality, of course, the outcome is well known - total global annihilation of civilization via full nuclear exchange.

Sorry, in a long drawn-out fight the US is sure to lose. They may be self sufficient at home -- once they rebuild the production in Canada and Mexico (and likely Alaska as I'm sure it'll be a dual front war between Russia and Canada) -- but their troops in the rest of the world will need to rebuild and refuel eventually, and the US simply doesn't have the logistical support needed for a world-wide war. And by the time they've built it they'll be dealing with 1-2 Billion men and women from China and India landing in Canada or Mexico in tug-boats. Even only armed with sticks the sheer numbers here would be crippling.

And while the US is trying to figure out how to deal with that the fully forced and mobilezed forces of Europe and Russia would be striking.

The US could possibly crush the rest of the world in convential warfare as long as it's one or two contries at a time. But all at once our existing deployed troops (which is the most of highly trained forces that make us "elite") would be crushed almost instantly. By this I mean about two days of bloody fighting. Once the US is on the defensive it's over.

Of course, in the real world I think the timing's about 7 minutes before the missles explode and then a few weeks for radation to kill the humans worldwide unfortunate enough to not be "primary targets."

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

I live in the US and I like it, but even I know that they US cant beat the whole world, its just insane.

I'm a humanities/biochemestry double major, and I swear it's not insane.

If, say, the USSR was still around instead of the US, and it was as powerful as the US is now, they couldn't win against the world. Why? Because they share a continent with Europe and China. It would be simple to invade and destroy them.

But the US is in a completely different hemisphere from any country that is any kind of threat whatsoever. There is simply no way for the World to get to the US.

The US is untouchable, and can therefore concentrate on building a massive war machine while destroying the ability of other countries to do the same with the massive war machine it already has.

With no nuclear weapons, this is a sure victory for the US. Not an easy one, mind you. Maybe 10 years and who knows how many millions of American casulties. But the World, in this non-nuclear scenario, has no chance.

[EvilMoogle]

With no nuclear weapons, this is a sure victory for the US. Not an easy one, mind you. Maybe 10 years and who knows how many millions of American casulties. But the World, in this non-nuclear scenario, has no chance.

(Emphasis mine)

That is the question of this. It really is a lot of sheer numbers. If it comes down to a defensive battle the US is sure to lose. Even if we are to assume that the US is Wartime self-sufficient with just North America under its control (which I have some doubt of, but I'll grant the point for now), there are two major resources that the US would be very limited in; time and manpower.

The US has the worlds strongest navy and airforce, but how many missiles does it have? How long can each ship stay out without refueling (I know this can be done at sea, but it represents a weakpoint or at least a pause). And the real trouble is how long does it take to build a new ship.

The other side is each kill counts more against the US than it does against the rest of the world. Quite a bit more (my rough math says something like 24:1, though this is very rough).

So the question quickly becomes how many Americans will die on the battlefield (be this ground troops or planes shot down or ships sunk). For that matter, how many troops will be lost to friendly fire or training injuries? The US's population is under 300 million, not all of these are working age and it takes a LOT of people to run the country. Pretty soon there would be holes in the borders and an attack route opens. Once that happens it's just math.

When compairing the US's armed forces to the rest of the world they're at a numbers disadvantage. And what's worse is the production capacity of the rest of the world is larger so in a long scale battle the US wouldn't be able to produce ships as fast as the rest of the world. Realistically one might argue that the rest of the world isn't going to work together or share strategies or secrets, but that goes outside of this scenerio.

The ONLY hope I could see for the US in this situation would be to instantly seize key locations around the world (the middle east) and manage to head off some of the fronts in the war quickly. But this would require most of the US's forces (including draftees), which would leave them somewhat open to attack if any navel blockades fail.

Now if the question had been if the US stockpiled weapons and arms and trained their military covertly for a decade or so, it might be a different question.

[Jeltz]

The US is untouchable, and can therefore concentrate on building a massive war machine while destroying the ability of other countries to do the same with the massive war machine it already has.

That works in both ways. SInce the USA can't touch the rest of the world either. TRotW has a far greater industrial capacity and could build the greatest army ever on out planet. The combined industrial and humanitarian capacity of Asia and Europe combined would dwarf the USA. Especially sicne Canada and Mexico aren' on the side of the USA. The USA can't just march into Canada and take their resources. Burning Candain oil fields and a bloody war which could result in heavy damages to the North American inustries around the lakes and in new England if the Canadians are lucky.

Never underestimate numbers. The larger the scale of a war is the more important numbers will become. The world could just fight Soviet style and move the factories with the front and burn everything before the Americans can capture it.

[Nemesis]

so are we gonna assume that all the govs in the world are gonna say "ok lets hit the US now without even making a plan to put our troops in place" i somehow doubt it. I would figure that it would all be political stuff like each country that US has bases in would expell the US military from their country.

Meanwhile Russia would send whats left of its black sea and baltic fleets to the east coast with its air force and army along with china. And European countries could redeploy their Armies into canada and mexico.

Now we have Russia/China just 20 miles accross the baring straight. Now even after this america strikes first it would be too late as the world alliance force would be on the boarders and ready to retalliate with their 1-2 billion plus forces that could then take over US in a long drawn out war.

Although If the President gave an order to attack from the bases in the countries i guess it would look bad for rest of world at begining but after a while i think a fight back would begin starting with resistance fighters then in the end russia and china forcing back the remainder of the forces. Which in turn will lead to a long drawn out stale mate which no side will win

About the british Tank it is a Challenger Mk2. It does out perform the Abrahms in manouverability, firepower and has less fuel consumption so yes it is better

[LordStronghold]

Challenger Mk2

Yeah, I know a little bit about this tank. The only thing that i know, this tank have a very high fire power & Various ammunition type.

[Arilou]

But the US is in a completely different hemisphere from any country that is any kind of threat whatsoever. There is simply no way for the World to get to the US.

The US certainly has a larger army than any south-american country (probably greater than all of them combined, certainly *stronger*) But their very presence (and there's just no way for the US to garrison all of South America, not enough people) means they'll be tying up a lot of troops. Not to mention that the US fleet (while probably able to beat any other fleet in any particular location) can't be everywhere at once.

The US is untouchable, and can therefore concentrate on building a massive war machine while destroying the ability of other countries to do the same with the massive war machine it already has.

The US is not untouchable, hard to touch, yes, but not untouchable.

With no nuclear weapons, this is a sure victory for the US. Not an easy one, mind you. Maybe 10 years and who knows how many millions of American casulties. But the World, in this non-nuclear scenario, has no chance

No, you are wrong, the US does not have the manpower. Even if they do have the resources they'll not be able to DO anything. Even bombing raids require pilots and the ROTW can simply wait until the US runs out of them (pilots do not grow on trees) The US will run out of pilots (and possibly planes) before the ROTW runs out of factories.

[smackmyface]

Go and learn history guys. During WW2, Germans and Japanese is the most advanced and very powerful in their military technologies and they both think that they can take the WHOLE world alone. They are so arrogant that they think they can conquered and take down every countries especially 2 largest country in the world (China and Russia) by themselves and look what happen after that.

And now we have American people that think the same way like the Germans and Japanese did during WW2 just because they are the most advanced and powerful armies in the world now and what's even funnier is you think that US ALONE can fight whole world when the Germans and Japanese did need to allied with each other at that time. Arrogant at it's best

Seriously, if US is to wage war against the entire countries in this world:
US--->:pwned<---World

[Contaro]

The people who keep bringing up that garrison duty would bleed the US dry keep forgetting that there's no partisan warfare under the rules of this thread.

I definitely agree that in a no-holds barred conventional war, the US will 9eventually) lose this fight. In a completely no-holds barred war, with nukes and everything else mixed in, there is no winner, only a bunch of slagged countries. But under the artificial rules imposed in this thread, the US is going to win, and arguing otherwise depends on illogical thinking. Yes, the rest of the world outnumbers the US, it doesn't matter when they aren't where the US is. Yes, other nations have mild advantages in very narrow military specialities. That doesn't matter. They won't have oil, the US will. They won't have a navy, the US one is a monster and will clean the seas. It would be a long war - probably 15 years - but there's no real doubt in my mind of the outcome under the rules of this scenario.

As for Canada and Mexico 'destroying' their oil reserves, that is quite easily the silliest thing posted in this thread yet. Do you have any idea how long it will take to burn that much oil? Did you realize that the world experts in containing oil fires are US contractors? Torching oil fields is going to slow down US utilization of those oil fields by only a month or two - a meaningless amount of time, as the US maintains a sizeable strategic oil stockpile....

[Contaro]

Go and learn history guys. During WW2, Germans and Japanese is the most advanced and very powerful in their military technologies and they both think that they can take the WHOLE world alone. They are so arrogant that they think they can conquered and take down every countries especially 2 largest country in the world (China and Russia) by themselves and look what happen after that.

Were the Germans and the Japanese not strategic idiots, they could have won that war. Japan was pretty much screwed from the beginning with the US, but Germany made two mistakes of not finishing off Britain before attacking Russia, and not making the political or military maneuvers to gain access through Turkey into the Middle East. A pincer movement down the eastern Mediterranean coast into the Sinai, and Monty is toast. The oilfields of the ME are within reach, the ME residents were pro-Axis, they can swing north and invade Russia along two seperate fronts...

It's because I study history that I believe one country can run the table if it has certain advantages and doesn't screw up. A little city in Italy overran the entire classical world. Some guy from a backwater part of Greece crushed all the major kingdoms known at that time. Some backwards steppe nomads ran over the Chinese Empire, various Islamic nations, and Kievan Rus, all at the height of their power. In all those cases, there were reasons that 'the rest of the world' was impotent against them. The US, under the specific rules outlined in this thread, wouldn't be stopped either.

[Arilou]

The people who keep bringing up that garrison duty would bleed the US dry keep forgetting that there's no partisan warfare under the rules of this thread.

Not according to the first post (I admit I haven't read the entire thread) and even if true partisans are disallowed nothing prevents the regular militaries from fighting guerilla-style.

They won't have oil, the US will.

Yes they will, the ME, Africa, Indonesia... All regions with abundant oil supplies. All outside of the immediate reach of the US (or at least within reach of a counterstrike from Russia/China/Europe)

They won't have a navy, the US one is a monster and will clean the seas. It would be a long war - probably 15 years - but there's no real doubt in my mind of the outcome under the rules of this scenario.

You do realize that even on your conditions the best the US could hope for is a stalemate, right? Even if the US can prevent the ROTW from getting where the US is there is no way for the US to do much more than minor bombing raids.

[Arilou]

Were the Germans and the Japanese not strategic idiots, they could have won that war.

Possibly, but not probable. The germans probably could not have beaten the Soviets (the Soviets where actually becoming stronger by the day, improving much faster than the Germans did, they could either strike in 1940 (historical) or be struck the next year or the year after that.

Japan was pretty much screwed from the beginning with the US, but Germany made two mistakes of not finishing off Britain before attacking Russia,

Problem was that Germany had no realistic way of finishing of Britain (Seelöwe was really not feasible at all) and if they built up the requisite they would have a vast, modernized Soviet army knocking on their doors come spring a few years later (Both Stalin and Hitler where clearly preparing to double-cross the other, that the Germans came as far as they did despite almost ideal circumstances says something about how truly lost their cause was)

and not making the political or military maneuvers to gain access through Turkey into the Middle East. A pincer movement down the eastern Mediterranean coast into the Sinai, and Monty is toast. The oilfields of the ME are within reach, the ME residents were pro-Axis, they can swing north and invade Russia along two seperate fronts...

All of which would take time, time Hitler didn't have.

It's because I study history that I believe one country can run the table if it has certain advantages and doesn't screw up.

I'm a student of history (and politics) as well, but I'd argue the reverse: Just because something is POSSIBLE doesen't mean it's likely. It's possible for the world to end tomorrow but that is no basis for policy.

A little city in Italy overran the entire classical world.

But you'll have to look at the social and economic background, it might sound insane that Rome conquered the classical world, but when you look at it, it really isn't. The romans where capable of mobilizing some 15% of their populace as soldiers (something that wasn't repeated until Nappy's days) Given that the average hellenistic kingdom or greek city-state might be able to mobilize a few %... It doesen't sound so crazy after all. (Not to mention that they romans often managed to exploit internal disunity and, to be frank, where very lucky)

Some guy from a backwater part of Greece crushed all the major kingdoms known at that time Some backwards steppe nomads ran over the Chinese Empire, various Islamic nations, and Kievan Rus, all at the height of their power. In all those cases, there were reasons that 'the rest of the world' was impotent against them. The US, under the specific rules outlined in this thread, wouldn't be stopped either.

Ah, but all of your above examples could take advantage of political disunity: The Song dynasty was divided, the various Seljuk successor-states where never particularly stable, the hellenistic states where alien conqueror-regimes, the Kievan Rus was not even an empire, merely a collection of independent states with some common traditions. In this scenario these (admittedly in an unrealistic way) factors are ignored: No political disunity to exploit.

Not to mention that, well, a lot of those guys where LUCKY. Superior skill and superior situation helped a lot, but they where lucky as well. How many Alexanders died in their youth or lost their first battles? How many Napoleons never got that crucial promotion because someone else bought the position? How many Romes got unlucky and never got that break they needed (Carthage is a good example) The US *could* win according to the scenario presented, we could also be invaded by aliens tomorrow, or Bhutan could conquer the world. The likelyhood is about the same.

[Ichigo_101]

Have you guys forgotten about Vietnam? I heard that the US got beated by Vietnam during the war... I dont know if that is correct but that what i heard....

a big country like US got owned by a small country...

[EvilMoogle]

I think what this thread needs is a little perspective.

Lets take the entire US infantry armed with whatever arrangements of weapons they choose (standard ground infantry).

Vs. China's ground infantry aside, all other navy/air force aspects aside. China lines up all it's 23-25 year old male inhabitants and has them march single file towards the US group armed with rocks.

China will run out of rocks before it runs out of 23-25 year olds because it can reproduce them faster than it will run out of them.

How many bullets can the US confined to North America produce in a year?

[Yondaime-kage]

Have you guys forgotten about Vietnam? I heard that the US got beated by Vietnam during the war... I dont know if that is correct but that what i heard....

a big country like US got owned by a small country...

Prancis lose to vietnam Soldier in Battle to Snatch Dien Bien in Vietnam Before US lose.

Anyway you statement is true.65 000 US soldier die because they fight with Vietkong militia .
and they lose with vietkong Militia ,Vietkong militia only use AK-47 .



------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my Opinon US is not that strong .
Abraham tank :not that strong ,i heard in news paper Abraham tank was blow to two pieces because the tank was hit somes mine at Iraq.
Gulf War: in gulf War US soldier is had a hard time to defeat Iraq Soldier .
US ship :dont think US ship is strong enough ,i heard Russia have a missle called 'Sunburn' .that missle can blow US ship easily .with its speed more than 5 marc.and the Accuracy is very Good.
Nuke Bomb ;Dont think US is the only one have a nuke bomb .North Korea has more stronger bomb like ICBM .
History:USSR is more powerfull than US long time ago .and at WWII german and Japan is the strongest country.German has more than 40 million soldier.
For Japan ,japan tecnology in WWII is just very good .if the US dont Droped Nuke bomb in Japan ,i think Japan and german can win the WWII.


Thats just my Opinion.

[~Kaio-Cam~]

Have you guys forgotten about Vietnam? I heard that the US got beated by Vietnam during the war... I dont know if that is correct but that what i heard....

a big country like US got owned by a small country...

we were going to win but our stupid congress wouldnt give full power to the president in the war. We lost of battle cause it was a holiday in Vietnam, so we stopped everything in vietnam so the viets can enjoy their celebration. Then BAM, surprise attack by north vietnam. Now listen, we lost more soldiers in that one surpise attack than all the battle we fought put together during the 3 years we were there. The war waas expected to be over byt the end of tha year but it ended up extendnig to 20+ years. Congress only gave LB Johnson(president) half of the men he requested. Not to mention we were restricted from using out best weapons. U.N. didnt allow us to use certain bombs(not talkin about the atomic bomb.) We retreated cause we couldnt make up for the losses. U.S. just made a mistake which wont be made again. So it wasnt really a loss.... though it is. U decide.

[LordStronghold]

Prancis lose to vietnam Soldier in Battle to Snatch Dien Bien in Vietnam Before US lose.

Anyway you statement is true.65 000 US soldier die because they fight with Vietkong militia .
and they lose with vietkong Militia ,Vietkong militia only use AK-47 .

But the Vietman have a heavy lost than US, It should be about more million people
[d*mn I cant remember]

In my Opinon US is not that strong .
Abraham tank :not that strong ,i heard in news paper Abraham tank was blow to two pieces because the tank was hit somes mine at Iraq.
Gulf War: in gulf War US soldier is had a hard time to defeat Iraq Soldier .
US ship :dont think US ship is strong enough ,i heard Russia have a missle called 'Sunburn' .that missle can blow US ship easily .with its speed more than 5 marc.and the Accuracy is very Good.
Nuke Bomb ;Dont think US is the only one have a nuke bomb .North Korea has more stronger bomb like ICBM .
History:USSR is more powerfull than US long time ago .and at WWII german and Japan is the strongest country.German has more than 40 million soldier.
For Japan ,japan tecnology in WWII is just very good .if the US dont Droped Nuke bomb in Japan ,i think Japan and german can win the WWII.

Every tank that Step on AT Mine [especialy M15] should blow to little piece.
Only one mine should be enough for the Largest & Strongest Tank!
AT mine is a very high power Armor-Piercing explosive [&Some of them use Depleted-Uranium!]

SS-N-22 Sunburn is a powerful Anti-Ship Missile ,But!, but it can only launch from Ship [or Aircraft]. If US send their submarine to destroy russia old school ship. That would be easy task. [because US have better Ship & Airforce]

German can help the rest to fight US with their technology. Their army is good, but doesnt good enough to fight US long time.

Japan... Emmm I have no idea.
But thier military technology in WWII is really almost s*ck when compare to US and German.

[D-Boy]

The reason Britain was not invaded was. The Luftwaffe tried to take out the RAF as a prelude to an invasion. The men of the RAF (British some polish Irish French and Czechoslovakians) held them off with great resistance.

Just because I didn't state it in my last post, i'll say it now. That guy who said GB did next to nothing in WW2 really pissed me off

[Jisploe]

I really have to say, there are same really delusionals people here. Do you really think that the US alone could win against the whole world?? Yeah right, you wish! I could give several reasons why that is not possible, but there have been some already posted. But following logic and reality, even the US can't take on entire world. Countrys like Russia, China, Englad, France, Germany, and so on. All of them united against the US alone, There are only two possible conclusions. US loses and world wins or Everybody loses. Do you people really think that while The US develops new technologies and weapons and all that, the other contrys like Russia and China, and others are just gona sit done and let them take full supremecy of the world?! I read a few posts back that China's tech sux. I only have to say, are you out of your f*****g mind?! China is one of the greatest country when it comes to technological and cientifical breaktroughs! And you think that the old rivalry betwen US and Russia is gone? AH, guess again! Americans think to highly of themselves and really underestimate the rest of the world, and that's already half the war won by the world.

p.s. i'm not really fond of the american mentality of superiority.

[EvilMoogle]

As for Canada and Mexico 'destroying' their oil reserves, that is quite easily the silliest thing posted in this thread yet. Do you have any idea how long it will take to burn that much oil? Did you realize that the world experts in containing oil fires are US contractors? Torching oil fields is going to slow down US utilization of those oil fields by only a month or two - a meaningless amount of time, as the US maintains a sizeable strategic oil stockpile....

Well, at least when I was talking about this I didn't mean actually destroy all the oil in the ground (which is obviously ludicrious).

But it's fairly simple to destroy the wells that get it out of the ground. These could be rebuilt, but it would cost the US valuable time and manpower to do it.

It would also reduce the strategic value of holding Canada and Mexico to almost zero, it would just mean a lot more land to hold.

The US national oil reserves has about 700 million barrels of petroleum in it. The US uses about 20 million barrels a day, whereas it produces 5.9 million barrels., that means it needs to come up with an additional 14.1 million barrels a day in 49 days or it bleeds dry. That is the logic behind destroying the production facilities in Canada and Mexico.

This doesn't even take into account the likelyhood that Alaska would fall quite quickly (where about a third of the oil in the US is), and even if it doesn't, the pipeline from Alaska runs through Canada (sounds like a smart target to me).

The US would have to pull back most of it's navel might to defend its own shores at which time the rest of the world gets to build up their forces. The rest of the world builds faster than the US does, so in the long run the US loses.

[Ichigo_101]

Vietnam owned US with no airplane or anything. The reason Vietnam won is because they are smart!
Vietnam is smaller than florida

[LordStronghold]

Vietnam owned US with no airplane or anything. The reason Vietnam won is because they are smart!
Vietnam is smaller than florida

MIG-17 & MIG-21 + Bunch of Field Artillery to 122mm Rocket

[??? (inactive)]

If you don't take into consideration the use of nuclear warheads, the US would most likely lose considering the fact that they would be facing the combined manpower, tactical ability, and artillery of the rest of the world. It would be like putting Labron James against the entire NBA. He may be able to take on 1, 2, or even 3 players but how do you think he'd do against all 347 players? However, if nuclear warheads were to come into play, it would end in an apocalyptic stalemate because the US, China, and Russia (I think) all have a shitload of nuclear missiles. Once these countries unleash all of their nuclear power the entire world would be destroyed over and over again. The only survivors would be the cockroaches who, I guess, would then be the true victors of this battle.

[Asmodeus]

Vietnam owned US with no airplane or anything. The reason Vietnam won is because they are smart!
Vietnam is smaller than florida

Umm...no, they didn't. Could we have destroyed Northern Vietnam? Hell yes, in probably about 2 weeks we could have turned the entire country to ash. But we weren't they to conquer them, we were they to keep them out of Southern Vietnam. The Vietnamiese were not smart..they were graced with a complete lack of morals, which played against the U.S. soldiers who were only willing to go so far by doing thing to people. North Vietnam lost 1,000,000 soldiers, the United States lost 50,000. That's not owning by any means. We could have crushed them like the ants they are...but we weren't trying the crush them, them were trying to pressure them. You can only put so much force on an ant before you crush it, and we were scared to do that, so we pussyfooted around too much.

But had they attack U.S. soil? We would have turned the entire country into a crater.

[Nemesis]

but Germany made two mistakes of not finishing off Britain before attacking Russia.

It was not a mistake that they did not finish britain off. The thing was they COULD NOT get the job done. The only way the germans could have ever successfully invade britain would be if they destroyed the RAF. This was what the battle of Britain was about in 1940 The Germans sent over 90% of their Luftwaffe to destroy british defences and take out the RAF and britain was outnumbered by 4 or 5 to 1. But due to superior tactics and better use of technology at the time (Radar) britain won the battle and made German invasion impossible.


The US develops new technologies and weapons and all that, the other contrys like Russia and China, and others are just gona sit done and let them take full supremecy of the world?!

I agree Russia even since the fall of the soviet union have a new standard issue assault rifle that is superior to the latest american ones. The Latest SU's out perform anything the US have come up with so far and do you think that even after the bombing of yugoslavia where the stealth fighter was either shot down or crashed that the russian envoy that landed there a day later did not take parts of it to use to creat their own planes.

While China i doubt are just twiddling their thumbs either they are definately making new and improved weapons each year and i think they are doing it quicker than america

[Ichigo_101]

Umm...no, they didn't. Could we have destroyed Northern Vietnam? Hell yes, in probably about 2 weeks we could have turned the entire country to ash. But we weren't they to conquer them, we were they to keep them out of Southern Vietnam. The Vietnamiese were not smart..they were graced with a complete lack of morals, which played against the U.S. soldiers who were only willing to go so far by doing thing to people. North Vietnam lost 1,000,000 soldiers, the United States lost 50,000. That's not owning by any means. We could have crushed them like the ants they are...but we weren't trying the crush them, them were trying to pressure them. You can only put so much force on an ant before you crush it, and we were scared to do that, so we pussyfooted around too much.

But had they attack U.S. soil? We would have turned the entire country into a crater.

I wish that the US won the war. Vietnam would be a better place than it is now... fucking communists.


I heard that the US tried to help North Vietnam vs South Vietnam.
So its like 2 vs 1
In the end they lost and ran like chicken.... but I wish they won =/
The reason that US lost was because the war took too long. While the US have to send people over by airplane and boat. The South Vietnam hid underground. So ya..

[Kakita Aiguchi]

America would loose even against most european countries alone because we have stronger magicians.
China has some strong magicians too.

[Jikoo]

I find this thread very amusing, I actually asked this very question to an american military-history professor at my university.

He almost laughed, and said that in a no-nuclear war, the US would have no chance of winning. Of course they are capabable of dishing out enormous amounts of damage, but in the long run, as many here has stated, the US just does not have the manpower or recourses to do it.

But it's an interesting discussion, that's for sure

[dmby]

Seriously people, the US hasn't the slightest chance of winning this war. The rules say "US v. World. That means 300 million people v. about 5.8 billion people. That is about a 1:20 ratio. 1:20!!!!! thats really sucky, by the way. also, all of our overseas troops would be demolished, because everyone would attack them, and they would stand no chance. Also, we as a country cant do jack-all-squat, because we are next to Canada and Mexico, thats it. We are isolated, making it really hard for us to do anything. Its either US loses, or everyone loses (If nukes start falling)

[Deathinstinct]

That means 300 million people v. about 5.8 billion people
The numbers aren't the problem.
The largest countries by population are China(1.3b), India(1b), Indonesia(242m), and Brazil(186m) (source http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html)
India, Brazil, and Indonesia don't have much military capabilities, and China's abilities are limited considering there size.

The true fight here would be the US vs the EU. (295m vs 458m) In this battle the US fails in power, size, and finances. Plus in a war, the US wouldn't get any imports and the economy would collapse.

[OniTasku]

I believe that the world would take this win. The United States is a huge super-power. We are the most technologically advanced military out there. But still, technology is obsolete without enough man power to use it. The rest of the world could pretty much just swarm over into the United States, say that each person was given a weapon, and the United States wouldn't have a chance. Yes, we could launch bombs...but we'd only be bombing ourselves. There's no way to defeat the mass numbers of the rest of the world.

[dmby]

Well, i guess the world kicks US ass then, huh?

[~My§tic~]

The world >>>> US

All the US troops are in Iraq, they can't defend their own county at the same time ;)

OniTasku was spot on. We would outnumber the US by an amount so large they wouldn't stand a chance.

[Le Male]

Ho Europe has noting really, think about this blueshift, what is the great protection of Europe? Its nato(otan) and nato(otan) its controlled by united states, most Europe countries need united states to protect in case of an attack.

With the end of the second world war Germany lost all of theirs army and nuclear weapons, Europe only has France, Spain italy and many more are protected by you people the united states.


France have nuclear weapon. Nobody can attack us without have domage.

[Rice Ball]

Funny stuff.

Do people seriously believe the US would win?

Was going to give a serious answer, but meny fools would assume i'm just being a typical anti-america person.

[Id]

Really its good to defend your country and all but One lone country against the world even with Nuclear weapons um.......................... Well lets hope it don’t come to that.

If history has taught us one thing is that All great empires come to an end.

Eventually the US will to.

[Green Lantern]

China= Nukes, ICBMS, crapload of submarines
Russia= Nukes, ICBMS, crapload of submarines
Israel= Nukes
Pakistan= Nukes
India= Nukes
France= Nukes, ICBMS, Aircraft
Britain= Nukes, ICBMS, Aircraft carriers, British Fleet

The world would have to cooperate with each other in order to win this- heavily industrialised countries such as Japan and Germany could easily put nuclear weapons into production within weeks of a war beginning, and the total amount of nukes which the world has is more then enough to wipe out the US within a period of a week

(remember- the US has to spread its fire, whereas all of the world is shooting at one target)

interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powers

[Scorpio3.14]

In military power excluding nukes and other WMD, The World>>U.S.A.>Any other one country and most small combinations of countries.

[lekki]

I'd love this when US gets slaughtered.

When it comes down to it, few countries would fall in a day.

Even tiny Great Britain could put up a damn good fight by itself versus U.S..

Iraq held out for a couple of days didn't they?

Look at Germany in the world wars.

U.S. probably couldn't even take 2 decently armed countries simultaneously.

[Tousenz]

U.S. >>>All We have superman ...

Other countries got Captain Britain...and Goku.

[Cthulhu-versailles]

here is a fact

China milatary force ) man power) is larger then the entire american population!!!!!!!

..usa has superman you say.. Japan has DS!

[Green Lantern]

Japan has all of the manga cosmics, Israel has YHWH, Middle East has their messiah, Japan has a crap load of shinto gods, europe has their various pantheons, including Asgadian (Thor, Odin) and Greeks have their Olympians (Zeus, Hercules)

Culturally, The world has a larger backlog of crazy heroes to save them too :P

[Jedi Mind Tricks]

Forget the world, the UK can't be touched while we have this man around.
He will kill your men and seduce the shit out of your women.

http://www.ursispaltenstein.ch/cgi-bin/EE/images/uploads/james_bond_art.jpg

http://www.filmplakater.no/images/small/70s/Viva%20James%20Bond.jpg

Notice to the bottom right: A woman who just had the shit seduced out of her.










If James Bond wasn't around, I would have to kill your men and seduce the shit out of your women.

[Rice Ball]

James Bond > Xander from XXX!


So UK wins :)

[Mizura]

Tie. Or rather, standstill. While the major army installations of the world would get bombed, the remainder of the army forces would form into impossible-to-track guerillas who'd regularly launch terrorist-like attacks on the US, enough to keep the war going, but not enough to destroy the major US military installations.

[Rice Ball]

Americans are unstable enough to use Nukes the moment things look bad (ie the start of the battle) :( Theres a Nuke pointed 2 miles away from my house...

[lucky]

lol stop with the nukes!! no nukes in this discussion... if we're talking nukes, we have enough to destroy the world 47 times over...


Air and Naval power are the fulcrum of victory; the overwhelming avantage the US Air Force and the US Navy have over the rest of the world means that only the Canadians could ever strike at US soil, and the Canadians wouldn't live long, especially right next door.

The US takes it, because it would be impossible for China or anyone to invade or bomb the US mainland. On the other hand, the US can drop any amount of bombs anywhere in the world and take minimal casulties.

Air power and naval blockades win the day.


US forces are already spread pretty thin in the very few countries they've occupied in the middle east. They can't take over countries AND defend their home simultaneously... regardless of the fact that they have more military might than any other country in the world. The whole world is a BIG place for a single country to occupy and/or destroy significantly... the US landmass isn't.


Canada has 5.6 billion


newly found oil fields in alberta, my friend... estimated 150 billion barrels.

[Shogun]

i would go for the wolrd with a tko in the fifth round, as it has already been stated if nukes fall everyone is dead, but since the world out numbers america, it is obvious and kind of stupid to state otherwise

[lucky]

oh and i say we add a poll.... would make it much more interesting.

I was wrong about Canada... I think.



you're right about canada. newly discovered oil fields in alberta... if processed properly, could get up to 150 billion barrels. Like whoa.


US would still lose.

[Lucifer]

I'm glad to laughing this is thread. US can beat WORLD? LMAO! no hell. World is many armys can easy beating US... I'm going to Anti-US... XD!!! I'm lazy to created FC..

China >>> USA

[Kyuubi Naruto]

Im from the US then im going to say that we would wi-.....just kidding. We would get our asses handed to us :laugh.

[Xenophobia]

The weakness of the US would be its non tight boarder security.

since millions of illegals immagrants cross the boarder every year, imagine in a world war.... we have millions of suicide bomber crossing over and just blow america up.

[Tousenz]

we have millions of suicide bomber crossing over and just blow america up.

From where? Mexico -_-;; Most of there family is here anyway why would they do that.

[Zoro]

U.S. >>>All We have superman ...

Other countries got Captain Britain...and Goku.
Germany will win with guys like Faust VIII/Eliza Faust(Shaman King):amazed ,Jaeger/Brocken Jr.(Ultimate Muscle or Kinnikuman):oh ,Dark Schneider(Bastard):cool ,Hades(Saint Seiya):P Ünd the One Piece characters that would be german in our world Smoker,Eneru,Shirohige,Roronoa Zoro(loves beer):) .

[Megaharrison]

The rest of the world combined in their current state does not have the capability to land or operate large amounts of ground forces. And really, only the UK, Israel, South Korea, and maybe France have highly professionalized forces with Russia and India having small numbers of effective forces. I doubt those Zimbabwian soldiers are very capable. Also you should take this into account:

U.S. = 14 super aircraft carriers
Rest of the world = 1 super aircraft carrier (half dead Russian one that really shouldn't be counted)

Aircraft carriers are probably the single most important weapon in modern war, it gives a nation the ability to strike anywhere at any time. No invasion over sea is possible without an aircraft carrier.

This being said however, the U.S. does not obviously have the capability to conquer and hold the entire world.

This is somewhat of a double negative.

[organizedcrime]

America simply doesn't possess the man power for this kinda thing. Come on, they're facing the world without nukes.

[Rice Ball]

Megaharrison - Does a Friend of yours or a family member work on one of these 'Super Carriers?'

If so which Gang on board does he hang with?

Unbelievable the deaths that happen due to a 'crew' member walking into another gangs turf on a US Carrier....Amazing who they open the doors too.

[organizedcrime]

This being said however, the U.S. does not obviously have the capability to conquer and hold the entire world.

Yeah, that's prolly it. While it's damn near impossible to actually attack America, America has a snowball's chance in hell at being able to occupy everything. Sooner or later, America's gonna run out of oil and when that happens America loses.

[Konoha-reaper]

Most of the assumptions on this thread are that the entire world would essentially unite to take down the United States.

Now look at North Korea. If world pandemonium broke out, do you really think they would ally? You strike when the time is right..if the U.S. was causing world wide havoc, that is the perfect opprotunity to launch an attack of your own.

If the entire world United against the United States, we (the U.S.) would lose. It's a numbers game, and I just don't think we have the numbers to justify it. However, in order for the U.S. to lose, France, Germany, Russia, North Korea, China, Britain, Spain, Italy, Iran, India, and Israel would all have to ally. If they weren't all on the same side, they don't have the military capability to defeat the U.S.

Now look at that roster I just gave you. For anybody who knows anything about world politics...do you think there is anything on the face of this Earth that would get those countries to ally with each other? You are looking at almost a three sided war between those countries alone if war broke out. You also have to play the location game. The U.S. could conquer all of the Western Hemisphere with little trouble. There isn't any military power here besides us, and once that was in place, we would already own half the world, quite literally.

From there on it's the exploiting resources game. Even if the United States did conquer the Western Hemisphere and made them American citizens, their would be revolts. However, if their way of life improved, and tneir standard of living came up, don't you think that they would be more inclined to help? Venezula has large amount of oil under it's soil, as does Mexico and Canada. You would have to play it like Chess, stratedgy while the whole time taking one piece at a time. It wouldn't happen overnight.

Africa has no military power, and is a non-factor in the equation. But over 1 billion people live in Africa, so, the World Deficet has been cut from 6 to around 4.8 billion people. Even with that, India has a large military, yes, but India doesn't have the resources to arm its 1 billion citizens. So, cut their number to 1 fifth, which includes the military, b/c that is about all they would be able to arm properly. That another 800 million people off. So it's now around 4 billion against the United States. That's still quite a bit.

Then you have China, with it's 1.2 billion citizens. The Chinese have a very fierce fighting philophosy, and the World's Largest military. However, they are decades behind the United States. I have family that does military work (he works on and designs weapon assemblies on Apache helicopters), and he says the equipment that most citizens in the U.S. know about is around 20 years old. So with that in mind, China is around 30 years behind us technology wise. And they once again will run into the issue of armament. They don't have the resources to arm a billion people. Once again, you have to cut away numbers from that. The peasants in China can't invade the U.S., so they are nonfactors. Without armaments or ability to actually attack, you cut away around...let's say 500 million Chinese (that's probably too low, but better safe than sorry, lol). That takes the population to around 3.5 billion people.

Europe will have the technology, and since Russia is part of Europe (a piece of it, anyway), if they allied, Europe would have plenty of resources to arm everyone that lives there. But this is also assuming they will ally, or that other incontinental wars won't be breaking out.

At this point, if the entire world allies against the United States, we have a count of about 300 million vs. 3.5 billion, which is roughly 11:1. That's pretty harsh, but when you add that no other countries in the world have a comparable Air Force or Navy when next to the U.S., some of the numbers aren't as important. An undetected B-52 bomber has the capabbility to carpet bomb an entire city. Aircraft carriers, at least most of the newer ones, run off of nuclear power (how many people here knew that?), so they can run for incredible amounts of time without aid. With these odds, victory still is a slim margain. Fodd for the U.S. isn't a problem, as the Great Plains and feed our entire country. The only thing that could defeat the U.S. straight up is a direct attack on the country itself, and the only countries in the world close enough to do that wouldn't have the military power to even jokingly attempt it.

With all of this said and done, it depends on how cruel we are willing to be. Aircraft carriers can send cruise missles that would level cities, and ICBMs can hit countries from thousands of miles away. If you take the nukes out of them and replace them with conventional cruise missiles, we could technically destroy most of Europe without ever leaving North America. If any country in the world has the potential to kill everyone on the face of the planet, even without nukes, it's the United States. The rest of it would depend on the world climate. If the ENTIRE globe with all of the countries I mentioned allied against us..we would probably lose. I, personally, wouldn't be around to see that. Cocky as we are, most U.S. citizens are extremely patriotic, and any direct assault on the U.S. would be taken personal. Most U.S. citizens would fight to the end to protect their country rather than surrender..or may that's just me, I don't know.

However, if U.S. assaults made the entire globe turn to war, against the U.S. and against each other, it turns into a free for all, which in that case, yeah, the U.S. would mop up. I think DS already mentioned this, but if the U.S. had wanted to DESTROY, not INVADE Iraq or Vietnam, we could have done so easily. If the world all went up in war, the U.S. would come out on top.

That's assuming we didn' tuse nukes. If we did...well, we'd turn the whole world into Kansas (flat and devoid of life). And no one wants that, do they?

One of the most STUPID posts ever, since when did the US ever! have 300million soldiers, if your gona take away the people not fightin from the rest of the world then then you need to take it from the usa is well, sorry to spoil it for you but its not 300 million vs 3.5 billion, oh no, more like 1million vs 3.5billion, yup so tru, 1 million vs 3.5 billion.

not 1 american soldier to the worlds 11 oh no, more like 1 american soldeir vs 3500 of the worlds, YEP thats right folks for evry 1 american soldier theres 3500 against dem dnt believe me - do the math ureself.
So dnt get cocky sayin we got quility, i dnt think quility will help when its 1 marine against a fukin battleforce!!!

whats also stupid is that all ure discusion on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the politacal affairs in europe r pointless considerin the first post clearly states that these points dnt count,

All of a sudden people think its some sort of gladiator ring where usa duels each country 1 on 1 stupid, its usa vs world for a reason, becuase ure facin the wooorld!!!, the countrys arnt gona stand there goin "oh unluky china just got invaded, guess dat means were next", the americans arogance will be its downfall with american soldiers thinkin they can just skip merily on enemy territory and drop bombs without a scratch, suddenly anti air guns dnt exist?!?

And all i keep seing is its all bout stratigy all bout stratigy, tell me dis, when have america EVER been known to use strategy effecticely with succes, i seriously dnt think usa is just about to become so smart that they can out strategise something witch is just ludicris,

of course i could be wrong if america has suddenly developed superhuman soldiers capable of wining wars with just a squad of 3, but i think thats unlikely!

[Banhammer]

You can't write asmodeus without "ass"
Wich is what we would have gotten handed right back to us.
Do you know what the german can do these days? Do you? One out of every three children has a sort of martial art training (Got this from german exchange student)
What does one out of three american children have? A divorced parent...
The German, the Sweedish and the portuguese have emp technology developed to the point where they could shoot emp waves from the sky... What have we got? Tomahawk missiles...
Coming right after a 6 years war you think we have chance in one hundred of beating this? Our intelegence sucks, the president(or should I say, PresiD'Oh!) would know we were at war five days after HE declared it!
In these five days china has blown up every major harbor in the west coast, and so on... And judging by the way we helped New Orleans, we would be doing something about it a week after Osama Bin Laden runs a plain through the statue of liberty...

[Arishem]

I don't know why anyone would resurrect a thread filled with such overwhelming ignorance. The posts in here are almost as bad as the Goku vs Superman thread. America vs the rest of the world would end in a stalemate with the advantage going to the US. The only way to land any sizeable force on our land is by the ocean; It's not going to happen. Our navy is larger than all others combined, and all of the currently operated ships are up to date. Any hostile force attempting to cross will get sent to the bottom faster than the Titanic after its fight with the iceberg.

The United States airforce has more jets and bombers than every other nation combined. With our stealth bombers and jets, we will be able to decimate other nations' infrastructures with little fear of retaliation. The boats everyone else will try to build to get over here will get destroyed in their docks before they can even set sail. We can also eliminate their populations with the chemical and biological weapons we "don't" have. I'm sure the rest of the world's morale will stay up when their crops and water sources are poisoned. :lmao

Any force that manages to land, and it's guaranteed to be messed up beforehand, will have one hell of a greeting. We have more tanks and other offensive ground vehicles than every other nation combined. There are more guns in our nation than people. Every single person could be heavily armed and armored. In short, the world would give up after realizing that we have more than enough firepower to kill generations of their people and still have plenty more to share. We do have an entire resource-rich continent to ourselves after all.

[Banhammer]

Yes, very resource rich indeed... So I guess our war is absolutley for he peace in the middle east... We could only sustain our own powersources for two months before everything went haywyre and we burn out of energy. And because we have more guns dosen't mean anything, since every military world competition we get in, that demands skills besides big toys, we wind up in the last places, behind people like croatia germany, spain and INDIA. Those people could get in here and blow everything up at will. In a country where everyone gets the right to "bear arms" we are more likely to have offed our own troops days before battle.

And God knows owr strategies are briliant, that's why we are now fighting owr own God damned weapons, and getting our boys killed by our own amo...

[Crimson Dragoon]

This is one of the most headache inducing threads ever.

[Banhammer]

Indeed, I love my country, but I just know that if we just asume that we're the best, then we'll never grow, and became the best (wich we are still a long way from)

[Tash]

The world rapes us especially now when more and more countries are gettings nukes, justifiably so with our trigger happy president :P

[Arishem]

"Yes, very resource rich indeed... So I guess our war is absolutley for he peace in the middle east... We could only sustain our own powersources for two months before everything went haywyre and we burn out of energy. And because we have more guns dosen't mean anything, since every military world competition we get in, that demands skills besides big toys, we wind up in the last places, behind people like croatia germany, spain and INDIA. Those people could get in here and blow everything up at will. In a country where everyone gets the right to "bear arms" we are more likely to have offed our own troops days before battle."

The majority of the world lives in abject poverty. What the fuck are they going to do to get over? Are they going to build a giant raft and sail to us while we sit on our asses and eat hamburgers? You also don't seem to understand a defensive war. Our targets are coming to us, not the other way around. The United State's forces will just sit in place and wait for the turkeys to arrange themselves to get shot up.

How are those "people" going to get in here? A war with the whole world means that any boat, plane, or automobile attempting to enter America gets blown to hell. We could easily rape any country's resources with the stupid amount of ICBM's we have. The amount of missiles we would cram up the asses of the competent/dangerous countries would result in the most epic fireworks display of all time.

The reason our troops are having such a hard time is because we're fighting under the restraints of "modern" war. If America still waged war going by what was acceptable during WW2, Iraq would be nothing more than scorched mark on the ground with oil refineries popping up here and there. A bloodlusted America would be the most disgusting thing ever seen in a conventional war. We'd bomb our enemies past the stone age.

Edit: Everyone read the first post. No nukes are allowed.

[Banhammer]

You have any idea the level the cloacking devices are on germany? Ten years ago they already were sonar proof, and camouflageale. We don't have anything that catches that. And about our precious "bombs" by the time we send our missiles, even if we don't get blown up by satelite emp's or by all the sleeper agents that it's impossible for us not to have completly garfunkled by now, would get stompraped by the countermissles everyone has watching us with. eastcoast would die hours before the fall of europe.
And you seem to put alot of faith in our sistem. Have you heard of HALF of the things that went wrong with OUR intelegence? We knew of the nine eleven terrorists, and their possible plans THREE years beforehand! And our decision making ability? in 94 everyone said invading Iraq would turn out to be the load of crap. We are crippled giants, more like fat boxers fighting a mai tai specialists.

[Arishem]

You have any idea the level the cloacking devices are on germany? Ten years ago they already were sonar proof, and camouflageale. We don't have anything that catches that. And about our precious "bombs" by the time we send our missiles, even if we don't get blown up by satelite emp's or by all the sleeper agents that it's impossible for us not to have completly garfunkled by now, would get stompraped by the countermissles everyone has watching us with. eastcoast would die hours before the fall of europe.
And you seem to put alot of faith in our sistem. Have you heard of HALF of the things that went wrong with OUR intelegence? We knew of the nine eleven terrorists, and their possible plans THREE years beforehand! And our decision making ability? in 94 everyone said invading Iraq would turn out to be the load of crap. We are crippled giants, more like fat boxers fighting a mai tai specialists.
What cloaking devices? This isn't Star Trek and Germany is not the Romulan Empire. Come back down to reality. As for this stupendous technology you speak of, where is your proof? Bring me some articles about this unsurmountable advantage that Germany possesses. I suspect you cant. If you're talking about their chemical powered submarine, you need to stop right there. It wasn't designed with oceanic crossings in mind, and we've already played wargames against it with cooperation from Deutschland. None of the common people in the world have any idea of our military's true capabilities. All of the "cutting edge" weapons we see unveiled have been in development for a decade or more. Our most revolutionary stuff is kept under wraps and for a good reason.

Your second paragraph is an absolute mess. As for our intelligence, so what? Great recon isn't needed to stop hastily assembled troop carriers crossing the ocean or an army of pathetically equipped common people, both of which are clearly visible from satellites. Yes, we knew about Osama's plans and we didn't do anything about it. Boohoo. Do you mean Mai Tai or Muay Thai? A fat person will drink the former, not fight it, you silly goose! A fat boxer will turn a Muay Thai champion into hamburger with a machinegun, cook him up, and proceed to eat him. Thank you, please come again!

[TWF]

I played this video game but the German's had Ubermensch Zombie soldiers who had pre-cog, bullet-timing reflexes and telekentic powers.

We are fusked. :(

[NU-KazeKage]

no one can beat the whole world

[Darklyre]

We have BJ Blaskowitz. Germany is fucked.

Also, just because nukes aren't allowed, doesn't mean we can't simply replace all our nuclear warheads with conventional ones. Considering the size of our nuclear arsenal, even converting 10 a day would lead to the complete neutralization of one sizeable country's military at a time.

Intelligence? The US controls a majority of the military satellites flying around, and the ones we do have are top of the line. These things can read the license plate off a car from miles in the atmosphere. Finding any sizeable military force would be easy as hell, and if they're hidden underground then they're not exactly a threat. Worrying about the single terrorist is stupid, when the main threat in such a world war is the buildup of mechanized forces. Hell, if we were really at war with everyone, it'd actually be EASIER to defend against terrorists: simply shoot anyone that approaches the borders.

The only way to actually take out the US is via a land invasion, but with the massive imbalance of naval and air power in the US' favor, the likelyhood of that happening is nil. I suppose Russia could try retooling their nuclear ICBMs and turning them into conventional ones, but the ones they still have are in a major state of disrepair, and they don't have nearly the amount of industrial capacity needed to get them into the state needed for deployment.

China - Useless without a decent navy. At best it can defend Asia from US ground forces. At worst, it's a massive drain on Chinese resources to keep them at a state of war-readiness at all times.

Russia - Useless without massive retooling of their industrial capabilities. They lack the staying power and the logistics needed to fuel their military for an extended campaign.

Japan - They have the technology and absolutely no way to use it. Their navy is a dinky PDF one, that has the offensive capacity of maybe a Coast Guard fleet.

Europe - The closest match to the US, but they lack the navy and air force to keep up with the US' sheer numbers. They'd lose by attrition. Considering the number of US carrier groups and the ability to strike from the Mediterranean Sea, Europe is really just a big target.

Middle East - No military worth a damn except Israel (which relies heavily on US support), and the day Israel allies with Islamic fundamentalist nations is the day the Rapture begins.

[Banhammer]

I can't proove that, because it was a discovery channel show. But whatever
My paragraph was kind of a mess, but I haven't slept in about 20 hours so I can't reason well right now.
But in my slumberous stupor I will say this, you're probably from texas or something, 'cause I haven't heard such arrogance sinces Dallas 05. You just go on, and think we can solve alll problems in the world by shitting money into it. Worked fine so far. Besides the fact that it dosen't. It won't. Bombs away we send, and by that time russia has sent their bombs, and the un has sent their bombs, and korea has sent their bombs, and iran their bombs, and guess what, we fucked up the world again. What a victory for us, we are only dead, but we took the worlddown with us.
Unless you wanna go by a difrent path. The one we claim we need no intelegence for. Sure it will work just fine, we saw the way our manned invasions have gone so far.
And we having resources? We killed our own country's resources, we hae to go across the world to go get them, but, oh, that's right, the world is closed.
And we are so good with our manhandling that our hospitals in combat aren't filled with mole and rats.. Oh yes, they are.
And our military organization is so great, that while fighting a long cripled deserted nation, our generals say we are loosing, adn they spend time calling each other names! Not to mention every single decision made so far has came back and bited us in the ass! If not for that, Iraq qouldn't even have the means to fight us with.
Maybe you think strategizing is good now. But wait. Us, with our allmighty military force, can't find a castle in the top of a mountain when compared to other special forces.
Our materials have the durability of a straw house, all our shit costs more here, except of course for jeans and nikees, and 40% of our people cannot find fucking england in the map! Is this the people who can defeat the rest of the world? 6 years and 7 thousand dollars per citizen later, and we haven't defeated ONE country, ONE crappy ass country, gunned by US. What the fuck do you think we'll do against the rest of the fucking world?
Don't bother to answer, I'll be sleeping
Just go comfort yourself in your lazy ass with your cheez whiz and whatever else you think it'll make you feel better and say "Yay, me!" and "Fuck yeah, america rules!", while my friends and my family die over there, trying to get over ONE country, with our superior GARness, or whatever you think we have better than them...

[Arishem]

"no one can beat the whole world"
*sigh*, you act like normal people have an unbreakable will like the characters we usually debate in here. They don't. The rest of the world will get tired of losings hundreds of thousands or even millions of people trying to get across the ocean to America. Face it, there is no fucking way that a hostile force would make it across the ocean to the United States, since our navy is bigger and more advanced than everyone else's combined.

As for Mexico, we will just continually bombard the border with nerve gas. There are few crazy enough willing to die by having their muscles spasm so bad that their spines snap. We have the resources to keep a constant happy cloud present in the land that connects North America to South America. You're insane if you think people will be willing to die like that out of hatred for the US.

America is also one of the few self-sufficient countries out there. The mid-west's Bread Basket feeds half of the world's population. We have everything needed to sit this out until everyone else gets tired of dying pointlessly. Until you can explain how anyone can get a sizeable force onto US soil, you have no argument, and I refuse to entertain this ridiculous idea any further.

[EvilMoogle]

"no one can beat the whole world"
*sigh*, you act like normal people have an unbreakable will like the characters we usually debate in here. They don't. The rest of the world will get tired of losings hundreds of thousands or even millions of people trying to get across the ocean to America.

The main problem is, the rest of the world doesn't have to come to the US, they can simply fight a war of attrition. The middle east is too close to India and China for the US to keep a foothold there. Without the oil resources we can't maintain our air superiority or manufacturing capability for any length of time (a few months at full capacity, maybe a year or two if we go to rationing).

After a few months, the navel lock down won't be absolute anymore, and other countries can start fighting in the oceans. Once we lose there, it's over, our borders are too freaking large to secure against a wide-scale invasion.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

The problem most people have in understanding this thread (Wow, I made it over two years ago ^_^) is that they don't understand the victory conditions.

They're absurd, of course - pretending nuclear weapons don't exist - but in this scenario, America wins easily, because America doesn't need to kill every person in the rest of the world or put an army in every country.
The only victory condition is destroying the military industrial complex of the enemy, so as to eliminate them as a threat for some years.

This is something the US could do to any country in the world, even outside a total war scenario. The US has the ability to plant thousands of tons of bombs with pinpoint accuracy on any bit of soil on the Earth. If the US wanted to put a 500lb bomb through the window of the Chinese Party Chairman's office, they'd do it, and nobody would know what happened until they found the bomb fragments.

On the other hand, the rest of the world, with the exception of Canada (Mexico doesn't have a military worth mentioning) cannot get anywhere near the borders of the US without being absolutely annihilated. A few British and French submarines could get off cruise missiles, but a few dozen cruise missiles against hundreds of American cities and military bases is a joke, and those submarines would be killed soon thereafter.

And an invasion? No chance. On the other hand, while of course it's absolutely impossible for the US to conquer the whole world, landing troops and holding vital pieces of land (canals, oil fields, airfields, etc) is easily in their ability.

Basically nothing in the air, anywhere in the world, exists without the US's permission. And without air superiority, no modern war can be won.

This battle is completely unfair, and very few people realize it. If I'd been thinking when I made it, I'd have put in some more conditions to make it more fair for the world.

[EvilMoogle]

And an invasion? No chance. On the other hand, while of course it's absolutely impossible for the US to conquer the whole world, landing troops and holding vital pieces of land (canals, oil fields, airfields, etc) is easily in their ability.

An invasion of the US is impossible as long as the air/sea superiority exists. But the US doesn't have the troops to hold anything outside of it's borders when at war with the rest of the world. We couldn't hold the middle east against the middle east, let alone the other countries that would get involved were they trying to destroy the US (India drafts 1% of their 18-25 year olds and has them march through the mountains with pointy sticks they'd still overwhelm any Army force we could put there).

And our ability to strike world-wide is dependent on our satellite infrastructure. Multiple different countries have the ability to blind that, and once it's down it's "traditional warfare". Our navy would be stretched to capacity just to defend our borders so they can't assist in attacks. We don't have anywhere near enough world-range planes to destroy the military production capacity of the world before our reserves run dry.

[Arishem]

The main problem is, the rest of the world doesn't have to come to the US, they can simply fight a war of attrition. The middle east is too close to India and China for the US to keep a foothold there. Without the oil resources we can't maintain our air superiority or manufacturing capability for any length of time (a few months at full capacity, maybe a year or two if we go to rationing).

After a few months, the navel lock down won't be absolute anymore, and other countries can start fighting in the oceans. Once we lose there, it's over, our borders are too freaking large to secure against a wide-scale invasion.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, but my argument is only for us being able to hold off the rest of the world until their will is broken. I know for a fact that we couldn't hope to hold any large portion of the globe. America's population is just far too small and the logistics would be a nightmare. Crushing your opponent's spirit so badly that they don't want to fight anymore is a victory in my opinion though.

@FourthNin: I'm not from Texas. In fact, I live in California's Bay Area, probably one of the most liberal areas in the US. I don't put a lot of faith into our government, but our armed forces are something to fear. The world would never want to see them unleashed without restraint. This thread just pissed me off, because so many were claiming that the world would win without any grasp of logic. With our current air, land, and see superiority, nobody would be able to get over here to do major damage.

[Darklyre]

I can't proove that, because it was a discovery channel show. But whatever
My paragraph was kind of a mess, but I haven't slept in about 20 hours so I can't reason well right now.
But in my slumberous stupor I will say this, you're probably from texas or something, 'cause I haven't heard such arrogance sinces Dallas 05. You just go on, and think we can solve alll problems in the world by shitting money into it. Worked fine so far. Besides the fact that it dosen't. It won't. Bombs away we send, and by that time russia has sent their bombs, and the un has sent their bombs, and korea has sent their bombs, and iran their bombs, and guess what, we fucked up the world again. What a victory for us, we are only dead, but we took the worlddown with us.
Unless you wanna go by a difrent path. The one we claim we need no intelegence for. Sure it will work just fine, we saw the way our manned invasions have gone so far.
And we having resources? We killed our own country's resources, we hae to go across the world to go get them, but, oh, that's right, the world is closed.
And we are so good with our manhandling that our hospitals in combat aren't filled with mole and rats.. Oh yes, they are.
And our military organization is so great, that while fighting a long cripled deserted nation, our generals say we are loosing, adn they spend time calling each other names! Not to mention every single decision made so far has came back and bited us in the ass! If not for that, Iraq qouldn't even have the means to fight us with.
Maybe you think strategizing is good now. But wait. Us, with our allmighty military force, can't find a castle in the top of a mountain when compared to other special forces.
Our materials have the durability of a straw house, all our shit costs more here, except of course for jeans and nikees, and 40% of our people cannot find fucking england in the map! Is this the people who can defeat the rest of the world? 6 years and 7 thousand dollars per citizen later, and we haven't defeated ONE country, ONE crappy ass country, gunned by US. What the fuck do you think we'll do against the rest of the fucking world?
Don't bother to answer, I'll be sleeping
Just go comfort yourself in your lazy ass with your cheez whiz and whatever else you think it'll make you feel better and say "Yay, me!" and "Fuck yeah, america rules!", while my friends and my family die over there, trying to get over ONE country, with our superior GARness, or whatever you think we have better than them...

Congratulations. You have just proved your complete ignorance of the distinction between total war and modern war, as well the fact that you love to use completely fallacious arguments that are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. What the hell does finding England on a map have to do with anything, especially when we can simply press a button that says "Launch ICBM at England"? You point out manufacturing deficiencies in Nikes like it has a relevance on jet fighters that are two generations ahead of 90% of the world's forces.

Oh noes! We're not winning in Iraq and Afghanistan! Let me put it to you in very simple terms: this is modern war. We cannot shoot schools. We cannot bomb temples. We cannot hit hospitals. We cannot shoot at anywhere that civilians might gather for shelter. What does this mean? It means that if you hide in a school, temple, hospital, or a shelter, then you're as good as camoflaged. If this was TOTAL war, WW2 style, then Iraq would be a series of smoking craters. THIS is the result of a carpetbombing attack, which the US can easily do to pretty much any nation on this planet in under 24 hours:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/0f/350px-Wesel_1945.jpg

Now, tell me: do the images in Iraq and Afghanistan look ANYTHING like that? No, they don't. We use precision bombing. We use specific rules of engagement. We go by the Geneva Conventions when on the battlefield. This is modern war, and it doesn't get NEARLY as horrible as total war does. If the US truly wanted to take out as much of the world as possible, we could literally leave all of Europe's large cities and military bases a smoking ruin in under a week. If there's anything to criticize about the US military in general it's not the technology and force available, but the amount of support from home, the stomach for war, and the general incompetency of much of the Department of War.

[EvilMoogle]

Oh, I'm well aware of that, but my argument is only for us being able to hold off the rest of the world until their will is broken. I know for a fact that we couldn't hope to hold any large portion of the globe. America's population is just far too small and the logistics would be a nightmare. Crushing your opponent's spirit so badly that they don't want to fight anymore is a victory in my opinion though.

But that goes both ways. Like I said, after a few months the US would have to put severe war-time restrictions in place (only can fill up your car once a month, no products made with petroleum available anywhere, many areas would have rolling blackouts or limited power availability).

I think the will to fight wouldn't last very long for the US populace, unless they're "bloodlusted" to some degree (in which case, wouldn't the rest of the world be as well?).

The US could win a purely defensive battle for a fixed period of time, but resource wise we've got critical weaknesses and can't possibly hold out forever.

[Darklyre]

But that goes both ways. Like I said, after a few months the US would have to put severe war-time restrictions in place (only can fill up your car once a month, no products made with petroleum available anywhere, many areas would have rolling blackouts or limited power availability).

I think the will to fight wouldn't last very long for the US populace, unless they're "bloodlusted" to some degree (in which case, wouldn't the rest of the world be as well?).

The US could win a purely defensive battle for a fixed period of time, but resource wise we've got critical weaknesses and can't possibly hold out forever.

Oh, of course. But this isn't a battle of attrition, it's a battle to see who could take out the other's ability to fight first...and the US has the reach and power to do that within a few months, before the general US population gets cranky about it or we run out of resources.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

An invasion of the US is impossible as long as the air/sea superiority exists. But the US doesn't have the troops to hold anything outside of it's borders when at war with the rest of the world. We couldn't hold the middle east against the middle east, let alone the other countries that would get involved were they trying to destroy the US (India drafts 1% of their 18-25 year olds and has them march through the mountains with pointy sticks they'd still overwhelm any Army force we could put there).

And our ability to strike world-wide is dependent on our satellite infrastructure. Multiple different countries have the ability to blind that, and once it's down it's "traditional warfare". Our navy would be stretched to capacity just to defend our borders so they can't assist in attacks. We don't have anywhere near enough world-range planes to destroy the military production capacity of the world before our reserves run dry.

Anti-Satellite weaponry is dependent on Air-launched platforms. Once the world's air forces are disabled, the thread is eliminated.
Also, the world might be loathe to disable the GPS system, as they rely on it just as heavily.

As for the inability to hold ground, that's, er, untrue. I don't think most people realize how many soldiers a single F-16 with cluster bombs can... demobilize.
Especially on open terrain like a desert, no army can operate while the enemy has air superiority.
Guess who has 13 aircraft carriers, each individually capable of defeating any air force in the world?

Trying to get oil from the Middle East would be impossible at first, because the ships would be the targets of partisan warfare trying to get past the Suez Canal and into the Atlantic. But another thing most people don't realize...

Oil production, Millions of barrels per day:
1. Saudi Arabia 10.37
2. Russia 9.27
3. United States 8.69

The US is the third largest producer of oil in the world. With strict civilian rationing, it's EASILY self-sufficient.

[EvilMoogle]

Oh, of course. But this isn't a battle of attrition, it's a battle to see who could take out the other's ability to fight first...and the US has the reach and power to do that within a few months, before the general US population gets cranky about it or we run out of resources.

No we don't. Non-nuclear we don't have the firepower to take out every other country's production facilities. Not before we exhaust our conventional weaponry. We could produce more (assuming we have sufficient raw materials to do so), but that will take time and energy.

Not to mention the fact that without our GPS satellites we'd be stranded (could the average pilot find Ziare's capital on a map?).

For the rest of the world it IS a battle of attrition. If they can survive for a few months they essentially win, because the US won't be able to maintain adequate offenses or defenses. Once that happens it's essentially a numbers game, and the US loses that one very badly.

[mystictrunks]

I bench press the world into Heaven for good ol' Uncle Sam.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/spriteninja/1185806733432.jpg

[EvilMoogle]

Anti-Satellite weaponry is dependent on Air-launched platforms. Once the world's air forces are disabled, the thread is eliminated.
Also, the world might be loathe to disable the GPS system, as they rely on it just as heavily.
We can't disable the world's air force overnight. And the US isn't the only country with GPS satellites (the best and most prevalent perhaps, but not the only). It's in the US's battle plans for what to do if a country attacks our GPS system so we are aware of the threat. It's foolish to assume other countries have never thought of it.

As for the inability to hold ground, that's, er, untrue. I don't think most people realize how many soldiers a single F-16 with cluster bombs can... demobilize.
Especially on open terrain like a desert, no army can operate while the enemy has air superiority.
But again, without radar facilities in-place the air forces utility is greatly reduced. Sure they can take them out, but only when they can find them. And if they go out paroling that's all the more gas resources they're using.

Plus we've seen several times now that the middle eastern countries with the oil tend to destroy the mining facilities when they retreat. That means there's valuable time wasted while those facilities are repaired.

Guess who has 13 aircraft carriers, each individually capable of defeating any air force in the world?
But those 13 aircraft carriers have a limited effective range. We need to keep them close to our borders if we're going to defend with them, they're not mobile enough to stop all sea traffic world-wide.

Trying to get oil from the Middle East would be impossible at first, because the ships would be the targets of partisan warfare trying to get past the Suez Canal and into the Atlantic. But another thing most people don't realize...

Oil production, Millions of barrels per day:
1. Saudi Arabia 10.37
2. Russia 9.27
3. United States 8.69

The US is the third largest producer of oil in the world. With strict civilian rationing, it's EASILY self-sufficient.

And the US uses around 20 million barrels per day (at least it did back in 2005 when I looked up the fact before). We're nowhere near self sufficient when we're not at full military overload.

[helpmenow316]

The Us would be fucked with out them losing one bomb..They just cut off all import and all outports in good. Put down a no trade agreement against us. We would run out of goods money and everything els in a few years. Prices will raise higher and higher. The stock market will crash and all that stuff.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

And the US uses around 20 million barrels per day (at least it did back in 2005 when I looked up the fact before). We're nowhere near self sufficient when we're not at full military overload.
The US is the most wastefully extravagant nation on Earth when it comes to energy usage. Cutting oil consumption by half with wartime rationing is easily doable. And that production figure doesn't take into account reserves. If we decided to rip up Alaska, it could increase by 50%.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html) by the way. Also gives consumption.
We can't disable the world's air force overnight. And the US isn't the only country with GPS satellites (the best and most prevalent perhaps, but not the only). It's in the US's battle plans for what to do if a country attacks our GPS system so we are aware of the threat. It's foolish to assume other countries have never thought of it.The US actually does own the only operational GPS system. One satellite does not a GPS network make - you need at least 24 satellites to get coverage. Europe is trying to orbit one, but it looks like it won't be operational until 2012 at the earliest. China's and Russia's are jokes.

[azngamer87]

I don't think the US can take on the world for a couple of reasons.

1. We need oil to wage a war this big. Since the US import so much of its oil from over seas a halt or cut will severly limit our military power.

2. The US will be facing war on all sides with no where to run.

3. The US does not have the man power or the troops to send all over the world. Even if we do send troops they will be severly out numbered.

4. We don't have the money to fund such a war. Look at us now we are fighting in Iraq, but we have to barrow other people's money to fund the war. In a war this size the US will go bankrupt in a couple trying to fund it.

So, I say if we to fight this war we will lose.

[Arishem]

I don't think the US can take on the world for a couple of reasons.

1. We need oil to wage a war this big. Since the US import so much of its oil from over seas a halt or cut will severly limit our military power.

2. The US will be facing war on all sides with no where to run.

3. The US does not have the man power or the troops to send all over the world. Even if we do send troops they will be severly out numbered.

4. We don't have the money to fund such a war. Look at us now we are fighting in Iraq, but we have to barrow other people's money to fund the war. In a war this size the US will go bankrupt in a couple trying to fund it.

So, I say if we to fight this war we will lose.
It'd be nice if people actually read recent posts before giving their input..
1. America is one of the most resource rich countries on the planet. We waste tons of oil everyday and could easily ration all of that. The article Blue provided states that we could increase our output by 50% with the Alaskan reserves.
2. A defensive war just makes it easy for America. Our enemies will bring their inadequate forces against our fearsome military machine and break against it.
3. We don't need manpower. Our navy, airforce, and military are bigger than everyone's combined. The current world has no means of getting an adequate force across the sea onto US soil, and we'd just blow it out of the water if they did.
4. Hahahahaha. It's best to assume our government has infinite money at this point, because they've increased their spending without any regard for the deficit. America's crops also feed half of the world, so we get to keep them all for ourselves in this case. We have all the food and weapons necessary to hold out against the rest of the world.

[EvilMoogle]

The US is the most wastefully extravagant nation on Earth when it comes to energy usage. Cutting oil consumption by half with wartime rationing is easily doable. And that production figure doesn't take into account reserves. If we decided to rip up Alaska, it could increase by 50%.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html) by the way. Also gives consumption.
Cutting in half would still put the US in the red though.

Plus the oil reserves in Alaska would be very dangerous to try to use, as they're pipelined through Canada (part of "The World"). Said pipeline would be destroyed right at the start of the war (or at least diverted to a resource Canada wanted).

And Alaska would likely be a hotspot of fighting at the start of the war (given the resources there and the accessibility to the invasion). And every troop/carrier/plane/etc we put there is one less that we have to defend other locations with (two carrier groups would defend Alaska nicely, but then that's two less we have to defend our interests in the Middle East or to attack Europe).



The US actually does own the only operational GPS system. One satellite does not a GPS network make - you need at least 24 satellites to get coverage. Europe is trying to orbit one, but it looks like it won't be operational until 2012 at the earliest. China's and Russia's are jokes.

Jokes for world-wide, yes. But for local use or specific targets they work. Which for the defensive war-of-attrition I propose is all they need them for.

Plus if you consider the options of "destroy the GPS network and be blind" to "get cruise missile'd back to the stone age and be blind anyway because the US will deny us access to the GPS system" it doesn't seem to be a hard choice.

Taking it out would have a huge impact on world-wide trade, but I can't think of any way a battle involving the whole world wouldn't have a huge impact on world-wide trade.

[Darklyre]

Jokes for world-wide, yes. But for local use or specific targets they work. Which for the defensive war-of-attrition I propose is all they need them for.

Plus if you consider the options of "destroy the GPS network and be blind" to "get cruise missile'd back to the stone age and be blind anyway because the US will deny us access to the GPS system" it doesn't seem to be a hard choice.

Taking it out would have a huge impact on world-wide trade, but I can't think of any way a battle involving the whole world wouldn't have a huge impact on world-wide trade.

The problem with this argument is that you're forgetting that most satellites are not geostationary, and are either geo-synchronous (which can easily be circumvented due to timing military actions around the orbital window) or are elliptical, which means that destroying the ground controller would put that specific satellite out of commission (they require controllers in order to keep the satellite from moving out of range of its target).

[Ion]

China= Nukes
Russia= Nukes
Israel= Nukes
Pakistan= Nukes
India= Nukes
France= Nukes
Britain= NukesThis is actually pretty scary, at least for me, since I'm an American, because the American missile defense system = shit (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-20-missile-defense_x.htm).

I remember reading another article, which I sadly can't find, where it said that out of 8 tests, only 3 actually stopped the incoming missiles. That's not a good ratio.

And I'm abstaining from deciding upon a winner of this, since a lot of people in this thread are more learned in this subject than me.

[Darklyre]

Most missile defense systems are absolutely shitty, actually, due to the prevalence of the MAD theory of nuclear "peace." Any previous attempts at missile defense systems have failed either due to monetary concerns or massive protests from other nations concerned at the imbalance such a shield would cause.

That said, most missiles do not have the range to reach the continental US. We still hold a massive range and power advantage over other nations in the nuclear club.

[Segan]

What about the russian conventional military power? It's probably not exactly on par with the U.S., but it should be a force to be reckoned.

While the U.S. starts to invade its own continent, the eurasian continent plus Australia would prepare for an all-out war and destroy any bases the Americans got outside of their continent and then bomb the states while the main forces are occupied with Canada and South America.

Or they start a nautical war when either side is trying to invade the other. But I guess, the US Navy would outpower the rest, right?

Really, too many factors to consider.

[Sharinganmaster29]

US wont rezist long enough by itself...world in rapestomp lol

[Sengoku]

What about the russian conventional military power? It's probably not exactly on par with the U.S., but it should be a force to be reckoned.

While the U.S. starts to invade its own continent, the eurasian continent plus Australia would prepare for an all-out war and destroy any bases the Americans got outside of their continent and then bomb the states while the main forces are occupied with Canada and South America.

Or they start a nautical war when either side is trying to invade the other. But I guess, the US Navy would outpower the rest, right?

Really, too many factors to consider.


the russians cant do jack shit to anyone right now. they cant even feed their own military men properly.

china is a bigger threat than russia at this moment. the russians only were a threat of course BEFORE USSR collapsed.

[Flamefang]

You're joking me... Russia's military technology is around the U.S' level and people are forced to go to war there. Heck, if the U.S.S.R was re-formed it would defeat the U.S. Against the world its overkill. Germany in its prime was the equivalent of the U.S compared to the military forces of the rest of the world at the time, and they needed the Axis to do anything, and the STILL lost. The U.S by themselves vs the world stands no chance in hell without nukes. Russia has great anti aircraft defense so bombing it would be nearly impossible