- 4,481
- Vancouver, BC
- GTP_Grand_Prix
Viper Zero
Hahaha, nice reference! đź‘Ť
US vs the world - hypothetical war
- Thread starter Zardoz
- 247 comments
- 10,534 views
Hahaha, nice reference! đź‘Ť
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
It should never come to that, but if it does, I think the rest of the world has better chance of winning. Nukes, mostly from China and Russia will destroy most everything U.S. There is a good chance the U.S. will miss some, resulting in some(tiny bit) of the world surviving. Basically, in this crazy nuclear war between U.S. and the world, world has better chance of completely destroying its' opponent.crimson_menace
- 12,486
- CCS
- GTP_Diego
But we're talking of two different scenarios... one where the world attacks the US and the US defends itself... in which the US might be able to pull it off... But it's again, not likely. The US may have more than Germany, more than France, better equipment than Russia and better technology than China. But the fact is that the US can't possibly have more everything than the rest of the world united. I think that's what you're missing, ledhed; it's just physically impossible.
And the other scenario where the US attacks each and every nation in the world at the same time... THAT they can't do. There's strength in numbers... If the US were to fight Russia, and after "conquering" Russia, they take over their remaining equipment and use it to fight, say China, and once they take over China they attack someone else, and so on and so forth, creating a snowball effect. That would be the only scenario where the US would win, but it wouldn't be the US, but a coalition of the US and the rest of the conquered nations. But then again, who's to say the rest of the world will sit idly while the US invades another country?
And I don't know if I'm confusing threads here... if I am, I'll delete the post and move it there, someone mentioned that the Iraq war has had only about 2.000 deaths and that Vietnam had around 57.000 dead, and WWII had about 23.000 (can't remember the number)... Those are the number of US soldier deaths. WWII had six million Jewish deaths (OK, maybe those weren't soldiers) and about eight million Chinese soldiers. That's about 15 million deaths worldwide. The Vietnam war may not have that many, but in total I'd think it was more than 57.000. Again, the Gulf war's numbers may be much smaller, but they're definitely not 2.000.
So modern age wars do indeed have the potential to kill some much more people. Besides, pre-modern ear wars usually were soldier vs. soldier. Modern age wars have so much more victims that aren't directly related to the fight.
And the other scenario where the US attacks each and every nation in the world at the same time... THAT they can't do. There's strength in numbers... If the US were to fight Russia, and after "conquering" Russia, they take over their remaining equipment and use it to fight, say China, and once they take over China they attack someone else, and so on and so forth, creating a snowball effect. That would be the only scenario where the US would win, but it wouldn't be the US, but a coalition of the US and the rest of the conquered nations. But then again, who's to say the rest of the world will sit idly while the US invades another country?
And I don't know if I'm confusing threads here... if I am, I'll delete the post and move it there, someone mentioned that the Iraq war has had only about 2.000 deaths and that Vietnam had around 57.000 dead, and WWII had about 23.000 (can't remember the number)... Those are the number of US soldier deaths. WWII had six million Jewish deaths (OK, maybe those weren't soldiers) and about eight million Chinese soldiers. That's about 15 million deaths worldwide. The Vietnam war may not have that many, but in total I'd think it was more than 57.000. Again, the Gulf war's numbers may be much smaller, but they're definitely not 2.000.
So modern age wars do indeed have the potential to kill some much more people. Besides, pre-modern ear wars usually were soldier vs. soldier. Modern age wars have so much more victims that aren't directly related to the fight.
- 3,425
Diego440
The only country with a stategic bomber force of any merit is the former Soviet Union . Whats left of it is obsolecsent . How do you propose this united world actually gets to the US to attack it ? While they figure that out they can sit back and eat thousands of cruise missiles aimed at any airfeild and absorb Stealth bomber attacks and unmaned preditor type bombers . Its not on physically possibile but its more than likely that the worlds air forces will be destroyed within a few months..while they are still figuring out how to attack us. Except for China and Russia most of the world has tacticle fighters and bombers along with fighters .
Very little intercontinental bomber force besides the US .
Your all doomed bwaaaahahahahahahahaha .
- 2,208
Diego440
American war casualties
ledhed
While it will always be impossible to know the exact figure, low-side estimate is 45 million, and high-side estimates are about 55 million. The 20-million Russian figure is correct.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
ledhed
Ballistic Missile Defense.
I'm telling you if we know about it, they probably have it. I think I even heard about a few successful tests. Sure maybe one or two incoming ICBMs get through, but if we take out the majority of them we'd be ok.
Here's a successful flight test.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031211-0757.html
- 2,808
World vs. US. Two things could happen.
1: We lose. But it would have to be extreme, and by that I mean every other person on earth hating the US with a passion (win or die trying stuff).
Or
2: We literally blow everyone else up with a mix strategic air campaigns and nukes. Then we don't lose.
1: We lose. But it would have to be extreme, and by that I mean every other person on earth hating the US with a passion (win or die trying stuff).
Or
2: We literally blow everyone else up with a mix strategic air campaigns and nukes. Then we don't lose.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
What amazes me is that given the situation - the fact that we're even debating the ability for the US to stay afloat if the world united against it - that we're not our acquiring new territory for ourselves.
At any other point in history if one nation amassed as much power over everyone else as the US has now - that nation went immediately started waging war on neighbor states to aquire more land and resources... yet the US hasn't moved in on Canada. The US hasn't tried to acquire any new territory at all!
That's not what the American people are about, and it's not what American patriotism is about. Americans aren't looking to control everyone else, we're looking to make sure that people are free. That's what American patriotism is about, freedom. Look at Iraq for example. We went to war with Iraq (over breach of treaty). We were justified in doing so (due to the treaty violations). But what did we do as soon as we won the war? Start up procedures for Iraq to be the 51st state? That's what many nations in our place would do. No, it's more important to us that the Iraqi people be free, that they control their own land and resources - that's what American citizens want to see happen (and our government obeys our wishes).
So keep in mind, while we're discussing all of these war games and doomsday scenarios, that despite all of the stength that almost everyone here has admitted that the US has, we're not expanding.
At any other point in history if one nation amassed as much power over everyone else as the US has now - that nation went immediately started waging war on neighbor states to aquire more land and resources... yet the US hasn't moved in on Canada. The US hasn't tried to acquire any new territory at all!
That's not what the American people are about, and it's not what American patriotism is about. Americans aren't looking to control everyone else, we're looking to make sure that people are free. That's what American patriotism is about, freedom. Look at Iraq for example. We went to war with Iraq (over breach of treaty). We were justified in doing so (due to the treaty violations). But what did we do as soon as we won the war? Start up procedures for Iraq to be the 51st state? That's what many nations in our place would do. No, it's more important to us that the Iraqi people be free, that they control their own land and resources - that's what American citizens want to see happen (and our government obeys our wishes).
So keep in mind, while we're discussing all of these war games and doomsday scenarios, that despite all of the stength that almost everyone here has admitted that the US has, we're not expanding.
- 3,052
danoff
Now that you mention it, I'd like to take a trip to the beaches Somalia. A quick dip in the nuclear waste-infested waters of the Indian Ocean is said to be most invigorating! I needn't worry about the toxicity of the ocean, though... the fresh water is said to be even worse!
...at least I won't have to worry about taxes, though, phew!
- 2,615
- Germany
- Wangan01
- Wangan01
It was mentioned before but I think I have to repeat it :
As soon as this theoretical case of World vs US would coem to reality, the US would probably have some successful weeks, but in the end there is no chance that they would win.
It's just a matter of production : 250 mio. people with like 3 % of worlds resources ( a pure guess
) against several billion people and 97% of resources. This war would take 6-12 months and then the US would have to face the results of military production of the whole world...
Think about it : Russia, China, India, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, France, Korea etc etc .... all switch their industry on war production.
Then again, I can't think of another nation atm that could surive as long as the US.
But winning ? Not in a million years, come on ! What means winning ? How do you want to control all territories ?
How can you even discuss that ?
As soon as this theoretical case of World vs US would coem to reality, the US would probably have some successful weeks, but in the end there is no chance that they would win.
It's just a matter of production : 250 mio. people with like 3 % of worlds resources ( a pure guess
) against several billion people and 97% of resources. This war would take 6-12 months and then the US would have to face the results of military production of the whole world...Think about it : Russia, China, India, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, France, Korea etc etc .... all switch their industry on war production.
Then again, I can't think of another nation atm that could surive as long as the US.
But winning ? Not in a million years, come on ! What means winning ? How do you want to control all territories ?
How can you even discuss
that ?
- 2,208
Max_DC
I didn't. I just hypothesized about a one-time-only punchout, with no desire to occupy a single square meter of territory:
Previous post, one more time...
People keep bringing up "occupation" and "control", which is, as you said, so impossible that its silly to even discuss it.
Not that my one-time-only global skirmish makes sense either, of course...
EDIT:
I get the impression some of you aren't completely aware of what we'd be up against. Its not like the whole rest of the world wouldn't have some first-rate hardware:
Eurofighter Typhoon
A worthy opponent
- 23,800
- Philippines
Viper Zero
But that would be a very boring chess game.
I still think it's possible to take on the world, just not all at the same time (ref. previous posts).
And yes, if Russia decides to launch their nukes, we're dead... waitaminute, I'm safe out here on a tropical island in the middle of nowhere, and it's pretty easy to burn my passport and fake an accent "Sehr, Amerikan? No see em, sehr, I tell you quick quick if he comes back!".
Now, a defensive war... that WOULD be interesting. You're all assuming that the US Air Force could guard some of the longest land borders in existence against guerilla troops from over a dozen nations. I can see it now, British SAS taking out the hydroelectric station at Niagra... Californians fighting a pitched battle with Mexican Army regulars... Canadian riflemen picking off US Special Forces as they trudge through the forests of the great northwest. That would be a "fun" scenario.
To be fair, US Rangers would probably make a good showing, but up against a lot of troops all trying to get across the borders at once... as well as submarine bombardments on the coast line.
And shame on you all for discounting nukes... the biggest advantage to using nukes is that the other side will likely be too afraid to retaliate... ESPECIALLY if they don't know WHO launched/planted the nuke in the first place and are afraid of pissing anyone else off.
It would either: A.) Give a goddamn huge tactical advantage to whoever did it... or B.) Send everyone straight to the negotiations table.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
While I belive that the world will be successful in invading the States given enough time, U.S. troops will kick some serious a**. At least in the beginning, invasion forces will get their butt kicked over and over by the Americans. There are just so many "would be" or potential soldiers here. Combined that with the home court advantage. 
- 2,615
- Germany
- Wangan01
- Wangan01
Famine
Well if we go into details, then we would find out that this war would never happen.
But back to the theoretical story : sure the US has a lot of advantages ...
defending is easier than attacking, one leader and one language, best war technelogies and weapons, most of world's aircraft carriers, a lot of nukes...
Still, it wouldn't matter in the end. All those advantages just don't count in longterm view. Think about it.
Who starts the war ? The world, since the other way round is idiotic
Tactical advantage : world . Where are the US troops ? All around the planet. Guessing again, but probably 40% of your weapons, soldiers, airplanes, carriers etc are too far away from the USA to make it back home. Imagine : you can't resupply your troops around the world, that would be short fights.
But that would only be the second step. Step one is sabotage. the US is not like Japan where 99.x percent are Japanese. The world could ruin your energy support ( remember the chaos last year or so ? ).
Ok maybe the CIA,FBI,NSA etc finds out about some plans but still you would have
troops and weapon status : -40%
energy supply - 50%
Next point. What kind of war will this be? A modern war with the least possible amount of civilian victims or a fight-to-the-end war?
When I think about how unrealistic this war is, I would say if it takes place than with the second option.
250 mio people, over 50% children, women and old people. 24/7 sabotage of energy supply and spy information about US troops movement. The world is bombing US's rather unprotectable suburbs, killing the the population.
Some states might even cooperate with the world : Perhaps Calaifornia etc just doesn't want to be wasted...
Then your inner conflicts : The USA is a country of immigrants. Can you be sure that the Indian,German, British, Chinese, Mexican guy next to you fights for the States or for his orgin ? I mean, can you be really sure ?
Now we have a war with 60% of your original troops, large areas without communication and power, areas that work together with Mexico or Canada,
tenthousands of dead civilians every day and a civil war. Not to forget that nukes could end all this before it really begins.
Conclusion : not the slightest chance. But hey, who would have? Nobody, so this is no offense to your military power or your nation, it is just not possible.
And the US could probably fight against any nation - without other countries engaging and win every war. ĂŤn a 1vs1 situation the US is unbeatable atm... but not against the world.
- 3,425
I would leave a few car companys un bombed and destroyed in Germany . I would definately not bomb any Beer production ...but for the rest...Bwaaaaaaahhahahahahahaa
Muhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahaahhahaahahahahahaha you are all doomed ...bow down before the mighty MOAB ...you will soon be feeling its wrath !
Bwaaahahahahaahahahah Muhahahahahahahahaahahah
ha .
Muhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahaahhahaahahahahahaha you are all doomed ...bow down before the mighty MOAB ...you will soon be feeling its wrath !
Bwaaahahahahaahahahah Muhahahahahahahahaahahah
ha .
- 4,481
- Vancouver, BC
- GTP_Grand_Prix
The world would already be mobilized and geared to weapons production before they declare war on the US, think about it. Declaring war without preparation would be f___ing idiotic...
Sure, the US could declare war while they were mobilizing, like Germany did to Russia in WW1, but it would still be too late. You really think the world isn't working on their own ICBM defense sheild? Or howabout supply submarines with stealth? Transport submarines?
You're DOOMED! Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!
Sure, the US could declare war while they were mobilizing, like Germany did to Russia in WW1, but it would still be too late. You really think the world isn't working on their own ICBM defense sheild? Or howabout supply submarines with stealth? Transport submarines?
You're DOOMED! Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
-
-
Looking for performance stats/info to recreate old F1 cars (1985 etc.) in GT7- Latest: the Interceptor
-
