USA vs the Whole World, guns included

[Scotty.]

A more interesting question would be the USA with baseball bats vs. the World with bare fists

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Change the topic to no nukes, and it is a lot mroe interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to be no nukes or no one wins. In a conventional war with massed tank divisions and troop formations the US could probably take on everyone. But once that phase is over the US loses the long drawn out guerilla war.

And I base this on nothing.

[JuntMonkey]

Number of players: 0

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Change the topic to no nukes, and it is a lot mroe interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to be no nukes or no one wins. In a conventional war with massed tank divisions and troop formations the US could probably take on everyone. But once that phase is over the US loses the long drawn out guerilla war.

And I base this on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was teh US vs all though, we would win teh guerilla war to, the main reason we dont do well with it now is the fact that we care to much about civilians. Im pretty sure if there was a US vs The World, no one would care, and we would just unleash all our military resources completely leveling whole countries (even w/o nukes.) This is really all contigent on us being the US having first strike.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Change the topic to no nukes, and it is a lot mroe interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

change the topic to no nukes and the USA gets housed. are you kidding? you think our conventional forces can defeat russia, china, western europe and the middle east combined? i mean it would cost them a quarter billion troops AT LEAST to take the country, because we're armed to the teeth, but we'd get wiped off the face of the earth.

given the state of military technology and asymmetrical warfare, i would be SHOCKED if anyone attempts to invade any major power (USA, western europe, russia, china, india, maybe a few others) in my lifetime. if they do, game over man.

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
Change the topic to no nukes, and it is a lot mroe interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think so. Nukes are a great equalizer for a country like Russia who couldn't compete with us on a conventional basis. They still have more than enough warheads (more than the US, by the way) to completely devastate the US.

I think we'd have a much better chance of "winning" a conventional-only war than a nuclear one, largely based on geography and the fact that our navy is more powerful than every other navy in the world put together.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Change the topic to no nukes, and it is a lot mroe interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

change the topic to no nukes and the USA gets housed. are you kidding? you think our conventional forces can defeat russia, china, western europe and the middle east combined? i mean it would cost them a quarter billion troops AT LEAST to take the country, because we're armed to the teeth, but we'd get wiped off the face of the earth.

given the state of military technology and asymmetrical warfare, i would be SHOCKED if anyone attempts to invade any major power (USA, western europe, russia, china, india, maybe a few others) in my lifetime. if they do, game over man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know much about our military stockpile, but we dont have enough traditional bombs, missles and planes, to level almost everything with an initial strike?

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Change the topic to no nukes, and it is a lot mroe interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to be no nukes or no one wins. In a conventional war with massed tank divisions and troop formations the US could probably take on everyone. But once that phase is over the US loses the long drawn out guerilla war.

And I base this on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was teh US vs all though, we would win teh guerilla war to, the main reason we dont do well with it now is the fact that we care to much about civilians. Im pretty sure if there was a US vs The World, no one would care, and we would just unleash all our military resources completely leveling whole countries (even w/o nukes.) This is really all contigent on us being the US having first strike.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about jungles and mountain regions? The Russians had much trouble with the Afhgani's and they were all out in the wilderness away from civilians. It would still be hard to completely ruin a large urban area with conventional weapons. The Germans had no qualms about civilian deaths in the siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad, but they still lost those battles. You also have to take into account that not just the army, but all civillians will be fighting in the urban areas and the US will only have the armed foreces deployed over seas and all our civillians will be used for defense of the homeland only. A few million soldiers will eventually be grinded down to nothing versus billions of people fighting a total war of extermination.

[Shadowrun]

its hard to organize a a massive world world strike at all vital targets without any detection.
even if you are able to achieve this, what about the counter?


the world is too big for the usa to do this with the technology we currently have en mass.

[guids]

Im imaging a scenerio where we struck first, and had time to plan. It think it would be fairly easy to "fake" disasters in canada and mexico, so we wouldnt have to worry about them, pull our troops home from overseas, to help with "rebuilding", and then just unleash hell from our long range bombers, on the largest threats. I assumed we wouldnt even mess around with any type of urban warfare, and just level everything with MOABs and such