U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes

[Aizen]

who wins?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I was going to say the world could just call up 500,000,000 people & bum rush us, though in reality most countries have far inferior mobilization capabilities. That aside, I don't know how much the United States could do without nukes before other countries could begin invading in large numbers.

     Really, I don't know.

[Lunar]

nukes win

     I was going to say the world could just call up 500,000,000 people & bum rush us, though in reality most countries have far inferior mobilization capabilities. That aside, I don't know how much the United States could do without nukes before other countries could begin invading in large numbers.

     Really, I don't know.

Also, it's not easy to get them all across that water

[MK]

In other words we no longer have a "ground game" .

We would be overwhelmed by the other 95% of the world.

[Nixon in '80]

China provides the soldiers; Russia, the tanks; Japan, the kick-ass robots...

We put up a good fight, but not a great one...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I was going to say the world could just call up 500,000,000 people & bum rush us, though in reality most countries have far inferior mobilization capabilities. That aside, I don't know how much the United States could do without nukes before other countries could begin invading in large numbers.

     Really, I don't know.

Also, it's not easy to get them all across that water

     Another thing that occurred to me is that is the rest of the world acting as a host of separate entities or is it acting as a unified hive mind? That would be pretty important in how well we hold out.

[dead0man]

First off, can the US, the West and Russia use nuclear powered ships?

Do we get time to prepare, or does it start tomorrow?

We might not win, I think the first day or two of fighting would give you the answer even if it would take years to completely destroy the other side.  Civilians are going to play a large part, at least in any scenerio where the US loses.  We would be very tough nut to crack.

I'm thinking the US wins though.  Air superiority is HUGE and we'd have that, at least at first.  A long war of attrition would probably favor the world.  The rest of the West relies a great deal on the US's ability to move troops and gear around the world.  But what about Russia you say?  One of the US military's major goals for the past 50 years has been stopping Russia from getting military craft to the US.  We're are VERY good at sinking ships and shooting down air craft.  If the US can fly B2s over the other nations at will, you will stand no chance.  After your air defenses are gone, then the B52's come.  You won't like the B52s, nukes or no.

China provides the soldiers; Russia, the tanks; Japan, the kick-ass robots...

We put up a good fight, but not a great one...

But how are they going to get here?

[Aizen]

"Omg china has like 1 billion people"


so what? what are they going to do? sail over in their wooden boats? LOL!

[Lunar]

Africa contributes...

http://realvideosite.com/Trailers-and-Movie-Clips_30_South-Park---Operation-Human-Shield

[dead0man]

Hell, we might not even need the Army for this.  The Navy and Air Force may be able to handle the job.

How pissed are the Euros going to be when they wake up and read this thread?

[Nixon in '80]

China provides the soldiers; Russia, the tanks; Japan, the kick-ass robots...

We put up a good fight, but not a great one...

But how are they going to get here?

"Omg china has like 1 billion people"


so what? what are they going to do? sail over in their wooden boats? LOL!

We're not the only country with a navy... sure, ours is by far the mightiest on the planet, but the combined navies of Russia/China/Britain/Germany could get enough soldiers and artillery to Mexico to mount a nearly unstoppable invasion...

Blame the Democrats for dragging their feet on that border fence.

[MK]

Hell, we might not even need the Army for this.  The Navy and Air Force may be able to handle the job.

How pissed are the Euros going to be when they wake up and read this thread?

Well in that case maybe so.

But in hand to hand man for man we would get stomped back into the earth.

[dead0man]

China provides the soldiers; Russia, the tanks; Japan, the kick-ass robots...

We put up a good fight, but not a great one...

But how are they going to get here?

"Omg china has like 1 billion people"


so what? what are they going to do? sail over in their wooden boats? LOL!

We're not the only country with a navy... sure, ours is by far the mightiest on the planet, but the combined navies of Russia/China/Britain/Germany could get enough soldiers and artillery to Mexico to mount a nearly unstoppable invasion...

Blame the Democrats for dragging their feet on that border fence.

They won't make it out of their ports 3/4's of the time. Satellites/spy planes will tell us when they start to load up their transports.  Air Craft and missiles fly very VERY fast.

The only chance they'd have is if EVERY BOAT in the world was filled with military gear and military dudes as secretly as possible and put in the water a couple of days before the magic start date AND we had no idea it was coming.  Maybe.  But even if they manage to get 10 MILLION (and that would be an amazing feat), armed dudes on our soil, how far do you think they'd get?  We'd just bomb them here.  Have you ever seen a daisy cutter in action?  Ground Armies are worthless if you don't have air superiority.

Hell, we might not even need the Army for this.  The Navy and Air Force may be able to handle the job.

How pissed are the Euros going to be when they wake up and read this thread?

Well in that case maybe so.

But in hand to hand man for man we would get stomped back into the earth.

Why on Earth would we fight that way?

[Lunar]

If China gets its anti-satellite missiles...

But yeah, the US might be able to just launch enough mid and long range missiles to destroy a lot of ships quickly

[Sbane]

The world wins no doubt. We should remember that we have been selling all our wonderful technology around the world, and the russians have been doing the same. The world will just have way more resources than we will in the end.

[dead0man]

If China gets its anti-satellite missiles...

But yeah, the US might be able to just launch enough mid and long range missiles to destroy a lot of ships quickly

Which satellites do they shoot down?  The GPS ones?  I don't think they can (they are REALLY high).  The "spy" ones?  Good luck, God only knows how many we have up and where they are.

This is one of the side benifits to our military budget being so freaking huge.  We win all the forum wars of imagination.

[dead0man]

The world wins no doubt. We should remember that we have been selling all our wonderful technology around the world, and the russians have been doing the same. The world will just have way more resources than we will in the end.

Name the technology.  Explain HOW they beat us.  What resources? 

Yes we sell tech, but we don't sell the BEST tech.  Some nations come up with their own tech that is better than ours, but just because you have a better rifle or missles doesn't mean dick if you can't do anything with it.

[Sbane]

The world wins no doubt. We should remember that we have been selling all our wonderful technology around the world, and the russians have been doing the same. The world will just have way more resources than we will in the end.

Name the technology.  Explain HOW they beat us.  What resources? 

Yes we sell tech, but we don't sell the BEST tech.  Some nations come up with their own tech that is better than ours, but just because you have a better rifle or missles doesn't mean dick if you can't do anything with it.

Resources as in everthing??? You do need money and wealth for war. As for technology, we may have the best but it only goes so far. Also it depends on what constitutes a "victory". It is just more plausible to see the world defeating America than the world being overrun. How would that even be possible?

[opebo]

I do find it amusing that this thread is composed of libertarians and a few Republicans.. oh and one right wing democrat.  Maybe those are the nerdier types.. or maybe it has something to do with the time of day the thread was started.

Anyway as others have stated very well above, air power and military transport capability are hugely in the american favor.  In the short term the US would win very decisively.  The question for the overall win would be whether, without nukes, we could prevent the rest of the world from eventually building military hardware and mobilizing to their full potential (which could be of course overwhelming).

[dead0man]

The world wins no doubt. We should remember that we have been selling all our wonderful technology around the world, and the russians have been doing the same. The world will just have way more resources than we will in the end.

Name the technology.  Explain HOW they beat us.  What resources? 

Yes we sell tech, but we don't sell the BEST tech.  Some nations come up with their own tech that is better than ours, but just because you have a better rifle or missles doesn't mean dick if you can't do anything with it.

Resources as in everthing??? You do need money and wealth for war. As for technology, we may have the best but it only goes so far. Also it depends on what constitutes a "victory". It is just more plausible to see the world defeating America than the world being overrun. How would that even be possible?

What resources would the US need though?  We have well more than enough oil to run a war for a long time.

"winning" might be a difficult task if we must kill everybody else on the planet.  Still, we aren't losing.  Whomever controls the sky and the sea wins this fight and I've yet to see anything that gives the world the advantage in either.

[dead0man]

Anyway as others have stated very well above, air power and military transport capability are hugely in the american favor.  In the short term the US would win very decisively.  The question for the overall win would be whether, without nukes, we could prevent the rest of the world from eventually building military hardware and mobilizing to their full potential (which could be of course overwhelming).

Are we going to relax while they do this?  What advantage would a bombed to sh**t world have the second go around that they didn't have the first time?

[Јas]

Both lose, obviously.

[2952-0-0]

I'll be on the front line no doubt, so I'll make my way to Moosoonee or Cochrane and find a piece of wilderness.

[Lunar]

We'd lose access to critical imports

[opebo]

The question for the overall win would be whether, without nukes, we could prevent the rest of the world from eventually building military hardware and mobilizing to their full potential (which could be of course overwhelming).

Are we going to relax while they do this?  What advantage would a bombed to sh**t world have the second go around that they didn't have the first time?

Well, my point was just that we'd have to 'keep them down' forever, either by bombing or by occupying them.. 

Assuming we're talking about unending war with no diplomatic solution, probably the most effective method would be to physically occupy the Western Hemisphere, Australia, UK and other islands, and most importantly the oil in the Middle East, and then just engage in a program of keeping the rest primitivized through bombing or some other methods.