USA vs the Whole World, guns included

[By-Tor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do not have the naval force to blockade Canada & South America from massive landings

[/ QUOTE ]

Fleet Aircraft Carriers
USA - 12
ROW - 3

Missile Cruisers
USA - 22
ROW - 6

Nuclear Submarines
USA - 72
ROW - 71 (many of these are outdated Russian/Chinese subs)

Rest of world combined has a lot more smaller ships than we do, but LOL at thinking we couldn't prevent a seaborne invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This pretty much sums it up.

All we really need to do is massively ramp up factory production of bombs and we could easily blast the world into submission within little time using our existing Air Force and Navy.

and WTF is this "blockade" BS?

We see, we shoot, they sink (and have little or no capibility to rebuild since our superior airpower took out the factories last week).

[ThaSaltCracka]

Listen, the only way the rest of the world stands a chance of beating us is if they can unite, which I doubt would ever happen.

[greyhawke54]

[ QUOTE ]
You're post WWII record isn't very good, Vietnam, Iraq etc, on a losing streak some might say. You do have lots of guns though. We do have lots of people who hate you regardless, that's a lot of hate; geography wise you've got it pretty good; it'd be hard to invade you, though i'm not sure if you'd be able to adequately cover both the east and west coast; we could do a Normandy and attack in the less obvious place.

I don't think you'd be very good when it comes to arctic or jungle warfare, or desert warfare for that matter.

Probably best you attack sooner rather than later, whilst China and India are still developing nations, once their economies get going and they get lots of monies i think you'll have it tough.

Rest of The World ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing that you have to remember about those conflicts is that none of them directly affected our national and personal safety. The biggest problem that we have is a lack of political will not an inability to wage war. I think our resolve would be much different in a survival type situation.

[TruFloridaGator]

Why would we need a complete naval blockade? We would own any naval invasion through the air. USAF > any other air forces combined

Although, no we couldn't keep them out forever, Zurvan. We would probably be hurting for supplies, pilots, bombers, jets, etc eventually. At first, though, it wouldn't be close.

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would we need a complete naval blockade? We would own any naval invasion through the air. USAF > any other air forces combined

Although, no we couldn't keep them out forever, Zurvan. We would probably be hurting for supplies, pilots, bombers, jets, etc eventually. At first, though, it wouldn't be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

A war isn't won at the beginning - it's won at the end. Germany held off the world for a couple of years, but ultimately lost. The US would hold out longer, but not indefinitely.

EDIT: Air superiority cannot win a war. Air power is a support capability. To win a land war, you need boots on the ground. To win a naval battle, you need ships on the water. Air superiority reduces the numbers of each required, but air power alone just won't do it.

[By-Tor]

[ QUOTE ]

A war isn't won at the beginning - it's won at the end. Germany held off the world for a couple of years, but ultimately lost. The US would hold out longer, but not indefinitely.

[/ QUOTE ]

hold out? lol....did you forget about the round-the-clock world-wide bombing going on by our air-force?

and we're not talking about krouts dropin' m-1000's out the windows of a vw's with wings.

[guids]

This is 2007, this wouldnt really even be a land war.


even if it was a landwar, this isnt the same type of land war that was ever fought in the past, with foxholes, and hoardes of men charging eachother, this is the age of hummers, tanks, etc.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously we don't have the manpower to conquer the whole world. On the other hand, I am also dubious that we could be conquered, at least in the short term.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is not a conquest scenario. It is an extermination scenario. No the USA could not physically conquer and control all the territories of the world. But if the USA were to fight all out to the death against the combined population of the world, who would win?

And people mentioning Irag and Vietnam, if the US wanted to kill every living human in the country it would be very easy. Trying to convert them to captialism/consumerism while killing them at the same time is obviously self defeating. Would the rest of the world be able to kill every US citizen before they themselves are killed? That is the scenario.

[TruFloridaGator]

How in the world can Air Superiority not win a war? Air superiority is the best way to get a clear advantage. We're not living in the 1940s anymore. Our insane air technology would put a major hurt on the "World" and would be vital to defending our borders. Of course we need our Navy to help defend the waters, but the point is no ships are going to much damage before the Air Force wipes them out(initially).

I also realize the winner of the war is not determined at the beginning, Zurvan, but I never said we would win either. No one would.

Also, the Germans did the most damage/had the most success when they were on their offensive. I'm not saying they didn't have failure as well, but they got their asses handed to them while they were on the defense.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Air Supremacy is key in any theater. Ask a General.