US vs the world - hypothetical war
- Thread starter Zardoz
- 247 comments
- 10,371 views
- 12,486
- CCS
- GTP_Diego
I think the issue is about a war... of course, the US will lose eventually... on a long enough time scale, everyone's survival rate drops to zero 
It would come to a point of either surrender or die.
Oh well, I'm off to walk the dog... I'll give this thread some thought as I'm picking up poo.
It would come to a point of either surrender or die.Oh well, I'm off to walk the dog... I'll give this thread some thought as I'm picking up poo.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Is America the most powerful nation in the history of mankind?
Yes. Why?
Think about it. Who is the closest runner up, Rome? Rome couldn't have extended it's threat to the Americas. Rome couldn't extend it's threat to Asia. Rome wouldn't have had a chance against certain regions like in northern Russia for example.
The might of Rome was highly immoble. Sure they were able to cover much of what they knew on the Earth, but the rest of the Earth still existed - and they couldn't get to it.
The US can extend its power to every inch of the globe. If we want to surface a sub in the arctic we can do it. If we want to nuke Antarctica we can do it. In fact, if we wanted to nuke Mars we could do it (with a few modifications). Not only do we have the firepower to noticably change the orbit of the planet (we actually do), but we might just have the firepower to eliminate mankind altogether - who in the history of the world has had that kind of power?
Could rome have conquered Siberia if they wanted to? No. Could they have wiped out an entire country in a matter of hours just because they wanted to? No.
The US literally has more power than any nation in the history of the planet. That has largely to do with the fact that the US is the only major superpower left at the present time - when technology makes more possible than at any time in history. In 100 years maybe someone else will be the most powerful nation in the history of the world. But right now that title belongs to the US.
As for the US taking on the rest of the world. I think it's very possible. A few well placed nukes in China, India, Korea, the Middle East, and Russia combined with our ballistic missile interception capability (which would probably let a few counter-nukes through), would ensure that our air superiority could wipe out whatever remaining defenses were out there. Quite simply, the world could not invade.
That being said the US can barely occupy Iraq, so occupation of the world is totally 100% out of the question.
Does the US have more relative power over every other nation than any other nation in the history of the world?
This is more debatable.
The US has far more relative power over Argentina than Rome did. The US has the ability to wipe out Argentina whereas Rome didn't even know about Argentina. However, Korea or Japan both have more power over us than those regions did over Rome. Lots of countries have more power over us than they did over Rome.
So it's a toss up. We have power over countries Rome couldn't touch, but no region had much power over rome - which is not the case with us.
Yes. Why?
Think about it. Who is the closest runner up, Rome? Rome couldn't have extended it's threat to the Americas. Rome couldn't extend it's threat to Asia. Rome wouldn't have had a chance against certain regions like in northern Russia for example.
The might of Rome was highly immoble. Sure they were able to cover much of what they knew on the Earth, but the rest of the Earth still existed - and they couldn't get to it.
The US can extend its power to every inch of the globe. If we want to surface a sub in the arctic we can do it. If we want to nuke Antarctica we can do it. In fact, if we wanted to nuke Mars we could do it (with a few modifications). Not only do we have the firepower to noticably change the orbit of the planet (we actually do), but we might just have the firepower to eliminate mankind altogether - who in the history of the world has had that kind of power?
Could rome have conquered Siberia if they wanted to? No. Could they have wiped out an entire country in a matter of hours just because they wanted to? No.
The US literally has more power than any nation in the history of the planet. That has largely to do with the fact that the US is the only major superpower left at the present time - when technology makes more possible than at any time in history. In 100 years maybe someone else will be the most powerful nation in the history of the world. But right now that title belongs to the US.
As for the US taking on the rest of the world. I think it's very possible. A few well placed nukes in China, India, Korea, the Middle East, and Russia combined with our ballistic missile interception capability (which would probably let a few counter-nukes through), would ensure that our air superiority could wipe out whatever remaining defenses were out there. Quite simply, the world could not invade.
That being said the US can barely occupy Iraq, so occupation of the world is totally 100% out of the question.
Does the US have more relative power over every other nation than any other nation in the history of the world?
This is more debatable.
The US has far more relative power over Argentina than Rome did. The US has the ability to wipe out Argentina whereas Rome didn't even know about Argentina. However, Korea or Japan both have more power over us than those regions did over Rome. Lots of countries have more power over us than they did over Rome.
So it's a toss up. We have power over countries Rome couldn't touch, but no region had much power over rome - which is not the case with us.
- 3,052
danoff
If America is the most powerful nation in the history of mankind, why did it take so long to intercept 4 hijacked airplanes (2 of which came way too close for me) on Sept. 11th?
- 23,800
- Philippines
To realistically take over the world, you would have to be able to control key assets, infrastructure, resources and territory. The US of A does NOT and NEVER will have the MANPOWER to do all that.
To DESTROY the rest of the industrialized world... well, hey, that's easy. And in a year or so, every country, including the USA, would be steeped in a recession so bad that it'd take us another Century to dig out of it.
To DESTROY the rest of the industrialized world... well, hey, that's easy. And in a year or so, every country, including the USA, would be steeped in a recession so bad that it'd take us another Century to dig out of it.
- 3,052
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,286
This convo is kinda messed up first of all there would be nore more world wars cause of nukes. Secondly if a world war was on the fringes the rest of the world would probably be building alot of equipment for war. And thirdly once america was invaded and the rest of the world was winning the war america would just launch nukes then.
- 3,052
Swift
As I said before, if the US were to go to war with the world (which they already have) it would be for big business.
That's what globalization is by the way: US vs. World
Who needs bombs when you can have structural adjustment.
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,286
I agree with MRKTMKR1986.
I know its hypothetical wasnt getting wound up all but could basically just sum it up real quick.Im sue alot of people have fantasized what it would be like The world VS Usa
I know its hypothetical wasnt getting wound up all but could basically just sum it up real quick.Im sue alot of people have fantasized what it would be like The world VS Usa
- 12,486
- CCS
- GTP_Diego
There's also a factor we haven't taken into account. If the US were to invade a country, say Greenland; and in the process, declare war on the whole world, could the US defend itself from the world AND attack every country at the same time? I doubt it... The US may have the power to defend the continental US from attacks coming from the outside, but there's no way to defend itself from domestic threats.
Plus, it's not physically possible to defend the whole country and attack other countries at the same time. You may not know this, but the size of the US is NOT 3/4 of the world.
I'm thinking that one of the reasons why a lot of people are disagreeing with the possibility is because the US would have to take over a whole planet in order to be declared victorious. And look at the hard time they're having in a country which is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho.
Plus, it's not physically possible to defend the whole country and attack other countries at the same time. You may not know this, but the size of the US is NOT 3/4 of the world.
I'm thinking that one of the reasons why a lot of people are disagreeing with the possibility is because the US would have to take over a whole planet in order to be declared victorious. And look at the hard time they're having in a country which is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho.
- 2,208
Okay, here's the deal:
President Pat Robertson and Secretary of Defense Rupert Murdoch, after abandoning their plans to change the name of the USA to "United States of Divine Destiny" (when they realize that Americans would have to start calling themselves "Destineers"), come to the conclusion that they can no longer tolerate having any advanced military hardware under the control of somebody other than themselves. They couldn't care less about occupying or controlling any nation. They're just afraid of everything, especially perceived military threats, even from so-called "friends" who keep saying mean things about them.
With the vast majority of Americans being convinced that the bird flu pandemic that swept through the nation in 2007, killing millions, was in fact a deliberate biological weapons attack perpetrated by a joint French/Chinese/Iranian effort, the political climate is ideal for Robertson and Murdoch as they muster support for action against the air forces and navies of the world.
With Vice-President Schwarzenegger's embarrassing public pleadings for "everybody to just chill for a minute" effectively silenced by the leaking of a secret California Department of Fish and Game report that the former Mister Universe was doing massive doses of steroids while governor of the state, the way is cleared for the military campaign to begin.
Realizing that the success of Operation Failure-Is-Not-An-Option depends upon the destruction of the British navy and virtually all of the advanced fighter aircraft of the European Union, all thirteen U.S. carrier battle groups (including the newest one, centered around the newly-commissioned Nimitz-class carrier George H.W. Bush), are deployed to the North Atlantic. Complementing this enormous armada are virtually all of the navy's guided missile frigates and Los Angeles-class attack subs, along with four giant Trident submarines, their ballistic missile tubes recently reconfigured for launching cruise missiles while surfaced.
First blood is drawn by the American forces as eighteen B-2 stealth bombers, refueled in flight midway across the Atlantic, evade detection by British radar and stage a night raid on RAF air fields, destroying over 60 Tornado fighter-bombers on the ground.
From then on, things would get interesting, wouldn't they?
I'd say the war would hinge on a few key factors:
Would the EU's Mirages, Tornados, and Eurofighter Typhoons be able to fight their way through the swarms of American F/A-18s and F-14s, somehow get past the volleys of anti-aircraft missiles launched by the cruisers, frigates, and destroyers, and get close enough to launch anti-ship missiles against the giant carriers? The sinking of several of those beasts would alter the global balance of power.
Would EU air defenses be effective against the incoming American planes as they assaulted the European air and navy bases?
How many front-line fighters could the Russians actually get into the air and move far enough to the west to enable them to reach the American fleet?
And how about the air group we've all forgotten, the one that may be the best-trained and most-proficient of all: The mighty Israeli Air Force? Would they dare to pull all their F-16s and F-15s away from their country and join the fray in the Atlantic? Would they have a choice, seeing as how it would be just a matter of time before Robertson and Murdoch would issue an execution order for their planes?
How much damage could the combined British and French navies inflict on the American armada? Would they be massacred in a matter of days by wolf packs of U.S. attack subs?
And here's perhaps the most significant factor of all: Would the U.S. Air Force be able to bring any of its fighter aircraft into the campaign at all? Remember, you can't fly a single one of their planes off an aircraft carrier. They can only operate from airfields, so the Americans would somehow have to defend land bases all over the world in order to use the Air Force's fighters. That just wouldn't happen, would it? That's definitely something we couldn't do, and it changes the equation, doesn't it? In reality, only the USAFs long-range bombers, re-fueled in the air, could be used in this fantasy campaign.
I'm starting to revise my thinking on this a bit...
President Pat Robertson and Secretary of Defense Rupert Murdoch, after abandoning their plans to change the name of the USA to "United States of Divine Destiny" (when they realize that Americans would have to start calling themselves "Destineers"), come to the conclusion that they can no longer tolerate having any advanced military hardware under the control of somebody other than themselves. They couldn't care less about occupying or controlling any nation. They're just afraid of everything, especially perceived military threats, even from so-called "friends" who keep saying mean things about them.
With the vast majority of Americans being convinced that the bird flu pandemic that swept through the nation in 2007, killing millions, was in fact a deliberate biological weapons attack perpetrated by a joint French/Chinese/Iranian effort, the political climate is ideal for Robertson and Murdoch as they muster support for action against the air forces and navies of the world.
With Vice-President Schwarzenegger's embarrassing public pleadings for "everybody to just chill for a minute" effectively silenced by the leaking of a secret California Department of Fish and Game report that the former Mister Universe was doing massive doses of steroids while governor of the state, the way is cleared for the military campaign to begin.
Realizing that the success of Operation Failure-Is-Not-An-Option depends upon the destruction of the British navy and virtually all of the advanced fighter aircraft of the European Union, all thirteen U.S. carrier battle groups (including the newest one, centered around the newly-commissioned Nimitz-class carrier George H.W. Bush), are deployed to the North Atlantic. Complementing this enormous armada are virtually all of the navy's guided missile frigates and Los Angeles-class attack subs, along with four giant Trident submarines, their ballistic missile tubes recently reconfigured for launching cruise missiles while surfaced.
First blood is drawn by the American forces as eighteen B-2 stealth bombers, refueled in flight midway across the Atlantic, evade detection by British radar and stage a night raid on RAF air fields, destroying over 60 Tornado fighter-bombers on the ground.
From then on, things would get interesting, wouldn't they?
I'd say the war would hinge on a few key factors:
Would the EU's Mirages, Tornados, and Eurofighter Typhoons be able to fight their way through the swarms of American F/A-18s and F-14s, somehow get past the volleys of anti-aircraft missiles launched by the cruisers, frigates, and destroyers, and get close enough to launch anti-ship missiles against the giant carriers? The sinking of several of those beasts would alter the global balance of power.
Would EU air defenses be effective against the incoming American planes as they assaulted the European air and navy bases?
How many front-line fighters could the Russians actually get into the air and move far enough to the west to enable them to reach the American fleet?
And how about the air group we've all forgotten, the one that may be the best-trained and most-proficient of all: The mighty Israeli Air Force? Would they dare to pull all their F-16s and F-15s away from their country and join the fray in the Atlantic? Would they have a choice, seeing as how it would be just a matter of time before Robertson and Murdoch would issue an execution order for their planes?
How much damage could the combined British and French navies inflict on the American armada? Would they be massacred in a matter of days by wolf packs of U.S. attack subs?
And here's perhaps the most significant factor of all: Would the U.S. Air Force be able to bring any of its fighter aircraft into the campaign at all? Remember, you can't fly a single one of their planes off an aircraft carrier. They can only operate from airfields, so the Americans would somehow have to defend land bases all over the world in order to use the Air Force's fighters. That just wouldn't happen, would it? That's definitely something we couldn't do, and it changes the equation, doesn't it? In reality, only the USAFs long-range bombers, re-fueled in the air, could be used in this fantasy campaign.
I'm starting to revise my thinking on this a bit...
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Diego440
Well that's a valid criticism if you think that the US has to occupy the rest of the world to be declared victorious. I don't think that has to happen. Only the cessation of hostilities.
Look at it this way.
Rest of the World: "US, we hate you, you suck. Kiss our ass or die."
US: "Never, bring it on."
Rest of the World Brings it on.
US launches nukes, destorys air bases, kills millions.
Rest of the world: "Alright alright, our bad. Peace?"
US: "Ok"
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Zardoz
I disagree. I think we could hold a few strategic airbases. But it would be because we'd build them from scratch and keep them well hidden - or we would strategically use airbases that already exist without drawing attention.
Remember, it's us, not the rest of the world that has the satellite imaging capability to find the enemy's forces where they sit. We're the ones with the precision cruise missiles to take out their forces when we find them too.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Zardoz
I think we would (and since this is fantasy... what the hey). We've got ballistic missile defense (or at least we were working on it so I assume it's done and we're not allowed to know about it). Besides, I don't think anyone is set up properly to launch a wide scale nuclear counter-attack... besides maybe china... which we would hit with aircraft first and the nukes.
- 2,208
danoff
No, we don't
danoff
The Russians still have thousands of fully-operational warheads ready to rain down on us:
Kiss our butts goodbye
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
danoff
That's the problem with an extremely "out there" hypothetical scenario. Because the very premises are way out of step with reality, there is no way you can ground the rest of the scenario into reality either.
Just as an example; one of the founding premises of the thread is that there would be no nuclear engagment whatsoever, this is simply because the US and Russia still possess enough nuclear stockpile to very throughly annihilate one another --and have enough to make the rest of the world unlivable for quite sometime. a6m5 already said "everyone loses" if that happens.
So basically, unless you rig the scenario to be conventional-only, there wouldn't really be anything to discuss except how foolish aliens from Alpha Centari thought we were when they land to check out our ashes.
If the war is conventional only, I don't think the US could hold out for longer than a decade. Sure for the first 4-6 months, the US would wipe the floor with the front line combatants. But eventually we would run out of ordinance. Seriously.
EDIT: dan, I've been checking in from time to time on missle defense, and I don't think it will change anything. Even assuming it works (which it doesn't really yet), we don't have them deployed in sufficient numbers to stop the First Wave of Russian ICBMs.
Not to mention their SLBM. And the UK's. And France's. (that is assuming France hasn't already surrended :-P)
It is Theater Level defense only. Continental defense is a long ways off.
M
