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

[dead0man]

Yeah...or release a super bug that is easily beatable with modern medicine and let the chips fall where they may.  Even that wouldn't wipe out all non-Ameircans though (and would likely wipe out a lot of Americans). 

But yeah, if winning required killing everybody else, we would probably never fully win.

[DanielX]

The US will lose in a long, drawn-out, to-the-death war - not enough resources to face everybody else - but would put up one  hell of a fight.

The US has essentially overwhelming naval superiority (the US has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, for example,), which will help keep the huge numbers of Eurasian troops away from the US mainland for a little while, leaving the US army facing only Canada and Latin America, which the US might be able to take on (although it won't be easy).

In the long term, though, the US will be cut off of most of the world's resources, except for conquered areas - which may face insurgency problems (Mexico will be a bloody mess, as its one place that the US could relatively easily conquer and yet have a very large, rebellious population...). Mass production of aircraft and submarines from other powers will eventually, over the course of several years, overwhelm US naval and air defenses, and then the millions of Eurasian troops can invade.

[dead0man]

A.South American countries would need to use the waters to transport troops to NA.  There is a huge chunk of Panama that you couldn't transport troops and equipment through.

B.You're discounting air superiority.  On the other hand, I may be discounting the absolute numbers of aircraft the world will have at their disposal the first several days of the war.  On the other hand, much of that aircraft rely heavily upon US satellites and other tech/intel that they suddenly would no longer have access to.  If the air shield can hold for a few days, we should be alright.  The longer it lasts, the better off the US becomes.  Unless of course....

C.We run out of some resources.  I can't think of any and nobody has given specifics.  What are they?  It wouldn't be oil.  And even if there are some, what's to stop us from going and getting it?  (unless of course we lose the air superiority war in the opening days, in which case we won't have time to run out of any resources)

[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?

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.

Why are you so sure America will control the skies and seas? There are huge armies out there like the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians with lots and lots of planes and ships, and this is 4 countries/regions. Imagine what the whole firepower of the world could do. We have the best technology no doubt, but its not as if these armies are pieces of sh**t or anything like that. If this was 1950 then America would have a good chance of winning, but today the world is a different place. Your opinion/ignorance of it is hilarious. Anyways I don't think the world or America would win in the end. I think only a religion such as Buddhism can win from a scenario such as this.

[opebo]

...are huge armies out there like the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians with lots and lots of planes and ships, and this is 4 countries/regions. Imagine what the whole firepower of the world could do. We have the best technology no doubt, but its not as if these armies are pieces of sh**t or anything like that. If this was 1950 then America would have a good chance of winning, but today the world is a different place. Your opinion/ignorance of it is hilarious.

Dude, American military dominance is far, far greater in 2009 than it was in 1950. 

[dead0man]

Why are you so sure America will control the skies and seas? There are huge armies out there like the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians with lots and lots of planes and ships, and this is 4 countries/regions. Imagine what the whole firepower of the world coudl do. We have the best technology no doubt, but its not as if these armies are pieces of sh**t or anything like that. If this was 1950 then America would have a good chance of winning, but today the world is a different place. Your opinion/ignorance of it is hilarious. Anyways I don't think the world or America would win in the end. I think only a religion such as Buddhism can win from a scenario such as this.

Military expenditures by nation
1  United States               713,100,000,000 2009
—  European Union Total 311,920,000,000 2007
2  France                          61,571,330,000 2008-2009
3  United Kingdom            61,280,890,000 2008
4  PRC                               61,090,000,000 2008
5  Russia                          50,000,000,000 2009
6  Japan                           48,860,000,000 2008
7  Germany                      45,930,000,000 2008
8  Italy                             40,050,000,000 2008
9  Saudi Arabia                31,050,000,000 2008
10  Turkey                       30,936,000,000 2008


 World Total                1,470,000,000,000


The world's only chance is air superiority in the opening couple of days by using extremely overwhelming force.  I think the US air shield is strong enough to win that.  Getting past the Navy will be hard.  Getting past the SAM sites that will quickly encircle our nation will be hard.  Getting past the thousandsF16s,F15s and F22s will be impossible.  But lets say a few squadrons sneak in amid the chaos and bomb...what?, a couple of runways/infrastructure?*  They won't make it back.  The US Navy is far beyond the rest of the world.  The USAF is far beyond the rest of the world.  The US Army is battlehardened and there is a nation of potential NCOs that have gotten out in the last few years that would join right back if we were fighting for our survival.  Don't get me started on the Jarheads. 

You're right, this isn't 1950.  Everybody was much closer then.  It ain't close today.




*What they bomb I suppose would depend on the stipulations of our "game".  If it's a fight to the death, then they would bomb the best military target they can hit.  If it's a fight to surrender, they'd still probably hit the military target, but a population center wouldn't be out of the question.

[Sbane]

...are huge armies out there like the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians with lots and lots of planes and ships, and this is 4 countries/regions. Imagine what the whole firepower of the world could do. We have the best technology no doubt, but its not as if these armies are pieces of sh**t or anything like that. If this was 1950 then America would have a good chance of winning, but today the world is a different place. Your opinion/ignorance of it is hilarious.

Dude, American military dominance is far, far greater in 2009 than it was in 1950. 

American military dominance over any one nation could be greater today, but against the combined resources of the whole world? Most of the world was in the ravages of colonialism back in 1950 so it would be hard for them to mass produce the technologies needed to compete. Today most of the world, especially asia, has become industrialized and all they need is the blueprints.

[Sbane]

Why are you so sure America will control the skies and seas? There are huge armies out there like the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians with lots and lots of planes and ships, and this is 4 countries/regions. Imagine what the whole firepower of the world coudl do. We have the best technology no doubt, but its not as if these armies are pieces of sh**t or anything like that. If this was 1950 then America would have a good chance of winning, but today the world is a different place. Your opinion/ignorance of it is hilarious. Anyways I don't think the world or America would win in the end. I think only a religion such as Buddhism can win from a scenario such as this.

Military expenditures by nation
1  United States               713,100,000,000 2009
—  European Union Total 311,920,000,000 2007
2  France                          61,571,330,000 2008-2009
3  United Kingdom            61,280,890,000 2008
4  PRC                               61,090,000,000 2008
5  Russia                          50,000,000,000 2009
6  Japan                           48,860,000,000 2008
7  Germany                      45,930,000,000 2008
8  Italy                             40,050,000,000 2008
9  Saudi Arabia                31,050,000,000 2008
10  Turkey                       30,936,000,000 2008


 World Total                1,470,000,000,000


The world's only chance is air superiority in the opening couple of days by using extremely overwhelming force.  I think the US air shield is strong enough to win that.  Getting past the Navy will be hard.  Getting past the SAM sites that will quickly encircle our nation will be hard.  Getting past the thousandsF16s,F15s and F22s will be impossible.  But lets say a few squadrons sneak in amid the chaos and bomb...what?, a couple of runways/infrastructure?*  They won't make it back.  The US Navy is far beyond the rest of the world.  The USAF is far beyond the rest of the world.  The US Army is battlehardened and there is a nation of potential NCOs that have gotten out in the last few years that would join right back if we were fighting for our survival.  Don't get me started on the Jarheads. 

You're right, this isn't 1950.  Everybody was much closer then.  It ain't close today.




*What they bomb I suppose would depend on the stipulations of our "game".  If it's a fight to the death, then they would bomb the best military target they can hit.  If it's a fight to surrender, they'd still probably hit the military target, but a population center wouldn't be out of the question.

I think the US navy would be the biggest thorn in the side of the world. Air dominance I am not too sure about. Stealth technology does exist outside of America I do believe, so......

I think America will do better in the short term while "losing" in the long term. This is unless they can take over/ occupy and efficiently use the resources of all of the Americas. And America sucks at occupying countries, as proved by Iraq. The military budget of the world is pretty enlightening and shows the priorities of America. Of course in an epic battle like this the world could easily pump more money into their armed forces, and Europe has all the blueprints already. All they need is some good old fashioned mass production, which can even be done in "backward" and "third world" countries such as China, India, Africa etc.

[dead0man]

And can also be bombed by B2s there as well.

If the world doesn't take the skies in the opening days, the world doesn't stand a chance.  As far as I can tell.  If further evidence is brought forth I could change my mind.

[Sbane]

And can also be bombed by B2s there as well.

If the world doesn't take the skies in the opening days, the world doesn't stand a chance.  As far as I can tell.  If further evidence is brought forth I could change my mind.

No, I think America takes the skies in the opening hours. I am assuming this war would last longer than a few years of course. America's only chance in the long term is if they take north and south America and efficiently rule them. Does the scenario in your mind( and it is indeed in our minds as this is ridiculous) include a quick "surrender" by the world? F'in surrender monkeys.

[dead0man]

I was assuming a last man standing kind of thing.  It would take years of course either way.  Shorter if our aim was just to force govts to surrender and play ball (and also assuming our answer to revolt was very, very 'stern').

Either way, controlling the Western Hemisphere would be the likely first step and it shouldn't be challenging (other than those first couple of days admittedly).

I think you're forgeting the play of satellites and spy planes in war.  The "world" wouldn't be able to build up forces, we'd see it, and bomb it.  The longer it lasts, the better off the US would be.

[Sbane]

I was assuming a last man standing kind of thing.  It would take years of course either way.  Shorter if our aim was just to force govts to surrender and play ball (and also assuming our answer to revolt was very, very 'stern').

Either way, controlling the Western Hemisphere would be the likely first step and it shouldn't be challenging (other than those first couple of days admittedly).

I think you're forgeting the play of satellites and spy planes in war.  The "world" wouldn't be able to build up forces, we'd see it, and bomb it.  The longer it lasts, the better off the US would be.

Keeping the masses under control and running an efficient regime would be a bigger problem than taking it over. Look at Iraq.

How much of an advantage does America have with satellites? The rest of the world probably has enough I am guessing, especially with Russia on our side. And the Chinese.

[John Dibble]

Depends on a few things.

First off, let's assume there's no Pearl Harbor type situation in which one side strikes the other first. A declaration of war is made and both sides mobilize their forces.

What happens in the first few days will be important. The US will likely be able to mobilize its forces fastest. We'd most likely take down the governments of Canada and Mexico rather quickly and occupy the areas - it's likely they would surrender at this point. Cuba would likely be hit by our missiles, and they would either surrender or their government would be thrown into chaos rendering them ineffective for a while at least. Any other Carribean powers would be similarly dealt with.

Provided the air forces of the Eurasian nations were repelled by our defenses, this is where things get complicated. The other nations of the world would have difficulty getting onto our soil (except perhaps to Alaska) in order wage a ground campaign. Our navy should be able to hold off the navies of the other nations. Who wins after this will be determined largely by how decisively the US manages to strike at other nations within the first few months, and how well the world coalition works together. Many nations might not work well together, and many don't have sufficient offensive capacity to pose an immediate threat. So if the US manages to force enough nations to surrender quickly, they could potentially win, but if they are allowed enough time to organize then the US wouldn't win the inevitable war of attrition.

[7,052,770]

Who has the world's biggest Air Force?
We do.

Who has the world's second-biggest Air Force?
Our navy.

End.

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm going to go with my gut and say America, due to our abilities to finance a war with the world's largest economy, and due to our extremely good, well-equipped troops. But we need an "George HW" like president to do it. Not a "George W" type president. Now for the occupation, that Would be difficult.

[Sbane]

I'm going to go with my gut and say America, due to our abilities to finance a war with the world's largest economy, and due to our extremely good, well-equipped troops. But we need an "George HW" like president to do it. Not a "George W" type president. Now for the occupation, that Would be difficult.

The world has a larger economy than America, so wouldn't they be able to better finance a war against us? Also they have us beat at natural resources and manpower. We already spend so much of our GDP on the military that we would do very well in the short term, perhaps taking over the Americas if we wanted to. The next part would be very difficult; engaging in a war around the world while keeping control of our new territories. And I totally agree that the kind of leadership we have will determine the outcome. With dubya at the helm, I could guarantee you a world victory within a year.

[RosettaStoned]

The World wins easily.

[paul718]

America, most likely.  We have the smartest people and more balls then any other country on Earth. 

Just the facts.   

[Sbane]

The next time anybody asks why everyone hates America, I will cite this thread as evidence.

[Sbane]

America, most likely.  We have the smartest people and more balls then any other country on Earth. 

Just the facts.  

"gut" "facts" I am guessing.

[paul718]

America, most likely.  We have the smartest people and more balls then any other country on Earth. 

Just the facts.  

"gut" "facts" I am guessing.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

These colors don't run.
Don't tread on me.
Love it or leave it.

[Sbane]

America, most likely.  We have the smartest people and more balls then any other country on Earth. 

Just the facts.  

"gut" "facts" I am guessing.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

These colors don't run.
Don't tread on me.
Love it or leave it.

Your "truth" is very amusing. You got some more entertainment for me?

Anyways I would think the knowledge that America would be able to compete with the rest of the world would be enough to get the nationalistic juices flowing, but I guess not. Most countries wouldn't last a day against the world. America could even be on top in the short term. I don't think you can say that about any other nation.

[JohnFKennedy]

Some people here are obviously very good at typing one-handed. Ahem.

[paul718]

America, most likely.  We have the smartest people and more balls then any other country on Earth. 

Just the facts.  

"gut" "facts" I am guessing.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

These colors don't run.
Don't tread on me.
Love it or leave it.

Your "truth" is very amusing. You got some more entertainment for me?

I'm not being serious.

[Sbane]

America, most likely.  We have the smartest people and more balls then any other country on Earth. 

Just the facts.  

"gut" "facts" I am guessing.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

These colors don't run.
Don't tread on me.
Love it or leave it.

Your "truth" is very amusing. You got some more entertainment for me?

I'm not being serious.

Oh ok. I thought you weren't but I wasn't sure.