Who Would Win This War: America vs. The Entire World

And you're also forgetting that we spend more on defense per year than the rest of the world combined.

Guerilla warfare is much different than all out army to army assults. Comparing it to the taliban or to the insurgents in iraq is silly.

If were talking about ridiculous scenarios, the initial question is already wild enough. In world war 2, many of the auto plants and manufacturing plants around the country became part of the war machine, that's how we could pump so much equipment out.

As for oil, like I previoiusly said, Canada has the second largest reserve in the world behind saudi arabia, you don't think we could get that if need be?

Offensively, there would be no way to win outright, unless we went on the offense after an extremely successful defense, but I still couldn't see it happen.

Also, you don't sneak in 100,000 troops through the rio grande...

The amount of countries that even have the logistics to attack the U.S. aren't nearly as high as you're projecting. Something tells me that the Cameroon Navy combined with the Sri Lankan fleet isn't going to add any value to a campaign the europeans or chinese would mount. And how on earth do you think they could get enough soldiers landed on any of the U.S. fronts without taking severe casualties.

Like I said before, you can take all the people that have the capabilities of mounting an assult on the states, combine them all together. We still out spend them on advanced weaponry, we out stockpile our arsonal, and we out produce them in every military category there is, except for probably numbers of men, but with technology on our side and the geographical benefit of all these armies needing to cross oceans, i still think we'd have favorible odds.

not quite wrote:

Yes, it would most definitely take "much effort". Particularly when Canada and Mexico would have the military support of the rest of the planet.

How's the rest of the world going to get to Canada and Mexico to stop us? Only Britain has the naval capability and know how to fight a global conflict. They don't have the capacity to get the rest of the world to the western hemisphere, especially when being opposed by the US Navy and Air Force.

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

As has been pointed out by several posters the US Navy dominates those of the rest of the world. It doesn't matter how many Chinese or Russians there are, they would never set foot on our shores.

And as also has been pointed out, the US Navy could dominate one or two or possibly even three countries' navies. Not the combined navies of the rest of the planet. Not even close.

There is no way the US would lose a defensive war.

There is no way the US would last 1 year in a defensive war. It is simply far too easy to knock out the infrastructure critical to keeping a huge military running.

I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes on this.

I can't believe it took you 10 minutes to post that infantile dream. The very idea that the United states could legitimately take on the combined militaries of the rest of the planet is the fantasy of a child

first off, great trolling. 10/10, it is so effective because of egotistical americans can't stand the thought of losing a war and being treated like they treat the rest of the world.

second, if every navy in the world invaded North and South America, the US Navy could not possibly defend its borders. Once this invasion took place the World could just move overland to invade while sending in a massive air and naval attack simultaneously. There's no way the USA would stand a chance, they would inflict a lot of damage, but the logistics of defending itself from all its borders, via ocean, land and air makes this a losing battle.

you wouldn't be so glad to be Canadian if y'all picked a fight with us... Even if we didn't win, Canada would be destroyed in the process.

The US doesn't have to take out the combined militaries of the rest of the planet. It only has to fend them off until they've exhausted themselves. Big difference.

I think we (USA) could hold out in a one-hemisphere war. I don't believe we could control all of the rest of the world's land all the time.

I am dead certain there is a realistic plan for both of these contingencies hidden in the Pentagon.

Sorry for the poor formatting in that last post.

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

The only way to knock out the infrastucture is by using planes capable of reaching the US from bases half way around the world.

No my ignorant friend, an ICBM will do the job just fine, thanks. The ground rules here were no NUKES, not no missiles.

Even simpler, a few bombers on feet will get things done as well. We have the most porous border in the world on two fronts. Thousands of miles long.

Really, how old are you? Twelve?

Young Buck wrote:

oops, I meant bigger than the next 17 largest combined. Still pretty big.

I have a neighbor who just retired from the Navy and he made a comment that the battle group that he was in was the 7th largest Navy in the world.

So ICBM's with bombs on them. What is that about 1000 before they're gone? About half as many bombs as the US and Britain dropped on Germany in a single day during world war 2. Keep in mind the US can shoot just as many back.

A few bombers on foot? How many is a few? 100,000? How are these guys and their bombs going to get here? Ride an ICBM? Teleportation?

Dude, check out naval statistics around the world.

The only reason international shipping is remotely feasible is the U.S. navy has ironclad control over the world's oceans, save for certain bodies of water that are strewn with islands and the coast of Somalia.

You can't invade a country if you can't reach its shores, and the US Navy can effectively prevent any ships from going anywhere if they so choose.

And whatever survivors get past the Navy, good luck dealing with the Air Force

can't get rubber? We don't exactly use too much natural rubber. Most everything that we use is produced by ExxonMobil, and quite a lot of that production is in Louisiana. Your point about the oil is valid - the precursors to the rubber come from that oil....

(didn't read the rest of the posts, so not sure if anyone addressed this) Besides eventually replacing gaskets and seals and inner linings of tires, not sure exactly how urgent rubber supply is in a shooting war (there are large warehouses of supply, so unless it dragged on for a while, it wouldn't matter.

And has anyone pointed out that the US is PART OF the entire world????

Son of Parents wrote:

CSU Runner wrote:

The rest of the world includes FRANCE.

It is almost impossible to win if France is on your side.

Very true.

You prick.

Out of a population of about 40 million, France conscripted seven and a half million of it’s manhood to fight in the First World War. Of that total, 1,385,000 were killed on the battlefield and when one adds the wounded - a figure of 5,650,000 is arrived at. A 75% casualty figure.

(The equivalent of the US having 10 million servicemen killed and 42 million wounded in a war right now)

With a virtually totally lost generation, it’s hardly any surprise they were not the most enthusiastic of the allied forces when they found they had to face the awful bloodshed again just a couple of decades later.

Hell, after suffering the piddling little casualty figures from Vietnam, what was it? 40,000 dead? (the British lost 30,000 on the first DAY of the Somme campaign. - the US was in a blue funk about any involvement in a war overseas for years - and then it took 9/11 to get you going.

In actual fact, I seem to recall you got quite a lot of vital assistance from the French during your spat with the British, during the period when you were fighting for your independence.

No to 2012 wrote:

Out of a population of about 40 million, France conscripted seven and a half million of it’s manhood to fight in the First World War. Of that total, 1,385,000 were killed on the battlefield and when one adds the wounded - a figure of 5,650,000 is arrived at. A 75% casualty figure.

I kinda think you may have made the other guy's point.

Who was it that said, "going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion"?

Of course the French were going to help out the American's toward the end of the their revolution in the late 18th century. They wanted to knock off Britain. Protecting national interests, much???

*Americans

What a bunch of nationalistic blind brain washed kids.I am amazed to see young people as myself are looking at a war as being so easy.

Since I had the opportunity to receive a multi- international education I have come to understand a DIFFERENT history than what some of you may learn in USA.

First point.

In the 2nd WW, USA itself on the same continent with Germany would have been destroyed by the German army in matter of months(I am not a fan of germany , I am just using my common sense)- ask any real historian. USA came in when everybody was tired and out of resources. Its like a regular Joe coming in the 12 round of a heavyweight boxing fight, after the two knock eachother out, clears the ring from the bodyes and declares himself the victor.

2nd point

The rest of the world attacking suddenly USA, USA (or any other country) would surrender within 1 week, to avoid a population massacre. Modern warfare includes biological weapons, long range nukes, and desinformation technologioes.

3rd and 4th point

USA would collapse in a war crisis, because its too damn dependednt on gas, everything is so spreaded,there is no functional and advanced public transportation as railroads,basically the economy would collapse when misiles would hit the oil rafineries,and in the winter time the north would starve to death.

Things are not as smooth as we may think they are. Look at the slow slughish 9/11 or new orleans response coming from the defense department. US autorities couldn t deal with a flood in New Orleans..........for god sake...how are they going to deal with nukes, planes and people coming suddlenly from everywhere.

In the end- a lesson that history is always teaching us:

Every great empire/power has its end at one point in time.-unfortunately

Um, it's a war. There will be lying involved. The leaders don't tell the AP of their plan. Use your imagination. For example, the government could warn of a flu epidemic and require immunizations. Don't only a couple of companies supply the U.S with flu vaccines? Still, there is probably too much collusion required, but it seems more likely than the entire world successfully synchronizing an invasion.

Yeah, and the smaller side won with inferior weapons, which was exactly my point. In this case, the smaller side has vastly superior weapons and a much, much better army to all but a minor fraction of the invading force. Oh, and check out some poverty statistics for Asia and Africa sometime. Tell me how you expect those people to fare in the war.

Well, the oil issue was already mentioned several times.

But as far as the rest, how is this ridiculous? I think the choice is pretty clear for both nations.

If Mexico and Canada oppose the U.S.

Pros:

On the side of the majority (which is located across the globe).

They have sided with oil producers.

Cons:

The majority of people on their side are famished, poverty stricken people who are unable to fight or have 0 chance of waging any type of offensive strike against on U.S soil. If, by a miracle, 500 million+ soldiers somehow arrive. Both nations must accommodate the occupation those troops while they try and break through the U.S. border. Sounds like a great deal for Canada and Mexico!

The U.S. immediately cuts off trade with both nations, while the U.S. Navy and Air Force quickly ruin their inferior counterparts. The ports of both nations are blocked, sending both into economic depression.

Both nations are isolated and sharing a border with a superior and aggressive enemy that is cornered and fighting for its independence (as history has shown repeatedly, the most difficult type to defeat).

Canada and Mexico must depend on help coming from halfway around the world and break through of U.S. Navy, which will probably never happen for reasons pointed out earlier.

U.S. planes take unopposed runs and ruin entire cities.

The U.S., fighting for its own safety, invades each country in need of oil.

If Mexico and Canada join the U.S.

Pros:

Both nations continue the majority of their foreign trade (over 80 percent for Canada!).

They get to hide behind the blanket of the U.S. Navy, and the geography of the allied nations makes it nearly impossible for anyone to land a ship in North America.

Very few of the enemy nations even have a Navy. Not a single nation in Africa or South America poses any threat. The war has then shaped up like this: Most of Europe, Russia, China, Australia, India, Japan and a bit of SE Asia must attempt to invade the U.S., Canada and Mexico by sea. I don't think it's a close battle.

In a land battle, invading troops must cross the frozen Bering Straight and march through Alaska and the Yukon during winter. Or they can hope to pass the Panama Canal and march up the narrow isthmus of Central America while the U.S. takes free shots from air and sea.

Cons:

The will not be on the majority side (population-wise), an invading force with inferior military technology.