The United States versus The World

**Kunoichi no Kiri** · 04-28-2005, 08:23 PM

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* · 04-28-2005, 08:41 PM

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** · 04-28-2005, 08:49 PM

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~~ · 04-28-2005, 08:52 PM

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 · 04-28-2005, 08:53 PM

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*** · 04-28-2005, 08:54 PM

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

Havoc · 04-28-2005, 08:54 PM

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 · 04-28-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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** · 04-28-2005, 08:55 PM

Way to argue your point

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.

Quote:

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 · 04-28-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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~~ · 04-28-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

Way to argue your point

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*** · 04-28-2005, 08:59 PM

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** · 04-28-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 04-28-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamendex

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 · 04-28-2005, 09:01 PM

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 · 04-28-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel_erosennin

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel_erosennin

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** · 04-28-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 04-28-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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

It cant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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*** · 04-28-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshift

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~ · 04-28-2005, 09:07 PM

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.

04-28-2005, 08:41 PM	#2
Donkey Show Bukkage Delicious Slut Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 12,946	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!!! __________________

04-28-2005, 08:54 PM	#6
*Shunsui* Think. Head Jew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Here Posts: 4,874	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 __________________

04-28-2005, 08:59 PM	#12
*Shunsui* Think. Head Jew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Here Posts: 4,874	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. __________________

04-28-2005, 08:52 PM	#4
~~Miguel_erosennin~~ Banned Chuunin Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 209	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.

04-28-2005, 08:53 PM	#5
pnoypridz Doesn't want a Custom Title ANBU Squad Leader Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: chicago Posts: 1,307	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

04-28-2005, 09:01 PM	#15
pnoypridz Doesn't want a Custom Title ANBU Squad Leader Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: chicago Posts: 1,307	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

04-28-2005, 09:07 PM	#20
~Kaio-Cam~ Katon, Ryukken no Jutsu ANBU Squad Leader Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,398	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.