USA vs the Whole World, guns included

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think so, and even if we did, it would be impossible to coordinate. the military assets of russia and china alone are spread out over millions of square miles. i doubt you'd even get bombers to most of their targets before the warnings went up. even getting our materiel in position for the initial bombing runs would spark alarm bells all over the world.

we could certainly wreak havoc and drop a ton of goodies on people, but win a war against the world? meaning, conquer the majority of its strategically relevant regions? repel determined invaders from thirty countries? no.

[Oranzith]

aren't we forgetting about the koalas?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

The only winning move is not to play.

in an all out nuclear war, of course, there is no winner.

"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

in a conventional war, US gets destroyed. our technological gap vs most countries can't overcome 300 million vs 5 billion people

[Golden_Rhino]

World 10 - USA 7. World nabs it with a last second field goal.

[TiK]

[ QUOTE ]
World 10 - USA 7. World nabs it with a last second field goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forget that we have Ditka though.

[Kramer.]

[ QUOTE ]
our navy is more powerful than every other navy in the world put together.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. could not conquer the rest of the world in a traditional sense. Not enough manpower. But due to geography, the U.S. could control North America and be able to repel any invasion and hold off any conquering armies for a long, long time.

[Abones]

We all lose.

[kordothebear]

only chance usa could win would be with nukes, without nukes USA gets killed so fast, we are talking 300 million vs 5 billion. With nukes the best the world could hope for would be a tie in which the whole world gets nuked, and I think that would happen about 50% of the time, hasnt anyone seen "planet of the apes?"

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
only chance usa could win would be with nukes, without nukes USA gets killed so fast, we are talking 300 million vs 5 billion. With nukes the best the world could hope for would be a tie in which the whole world gets nuked, and I think that would happen about 50% of the time, hasnt anyone seen "planet of the apes?"

[/ QUOTE ]

How are those 5 billion people going to get to us? swim? come down through canada's cold? You people are forgetting that we are one of the best countries to be able to mobilize its army, with an almost ideal geographical location, and a navy that is gross.

[djoyce003]

[ QUOTE ]

in a conventional war, US gets destroyed. our technological gap vs most countries can't overcome 300 million vs 5 billion people

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know how fast an C130 gunship can kill people?
I'm not sure we could "win" a conventional war against every other country in the true sense of the word, but i'm fairly confident that we'd also not "lose." Nobody else has the equipment necessary to overtake us (tanks, etc)....if you are talking just tons and tons of infantry I think we'd be able to manufacture enough bullets....not to mention the little fact that nobody has a navy that could get them here.

If the US fights to really win (ie kill however many people you need to to win, and no worries about collateral damage) there is no army that has a prayer in a conventional battle, not even the chinese. If you grouped them all together it would be tougher....but then again, I doubt you have a scenario where you attack everyone at once.