USA vs The World

Okay, no nuclear weapons, and we are talking about current military power and technology. We are also talking total military domination.

Who wins?

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053
youtube.com/watch?v=MpPSPQq7oas
youtube.com/watch?v=YnlaNR0iTek
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Very detailed graph. Really activates my almonds.

Its a tuff call. In all out war if we took a lot of casualties I don't know how willing my snowflake generation would be to fight. I Don't think anyone besides top Military personal actually know the United States true strength. Who knows what kind of weapons we got cookin. Same goes for them Chinamen and Ruskies

Budget analysis doesn't tell the whole story. Remember, the DOD is extremely inefficient and wasteful when it comes to spending.

Russia in the long run. They have a mostly homogeneous society that will not rip them apart, unlike in the US.

US pulls out a tough victory due to lack of force projection from the world. We have large oceans on both side. The first thing we would do is knock out Canada and mexico down to the canal. This would limit the worlds ability to land invade and would somewhat force a sea landing. Our navy is very powerful and would be a challenge to overcome. Our air power could harass any buildup of troops anywhere. Ground troops is where we are lacking, but if its world vs US you should be able to increase this.

>They have a mostly homogeneous society

HAHA nigger do you even know anything about Russia apart from Putin propaganda ?

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053

The ethnic Russia population is in drastic decline.

I wish US personal covered their faces like Ruskies do. It looks BA as fuk

The number one thing that sets us apart is the amount of aircraft carriers we have. Which in turn, gives the US an ability to deploy air attacks from anywhere and quicker than anyone.

>Ground troops is where we are lacking
We've got at least 100,000,000 m8

Who won the toughest wars for survival?
Who won the most wars total?
Who is winning now?

Slavs don't fuck around though when it comes to taking out the trash. If push comes to shove, the slaves will just remove the scum.

USA would lose, it's not about the quality of armaments, you'd just have too many adversaries. While you'd be pounding away on China and Russia, fucking Norwegians would sail their longboats up the Potomac and steal the first lady.

Special forces would do most of the fighting. The big 3 will never go to war straight up , it will just be proxy wars. I know thats against the discussion but that's truth.

US aircraft technology is also 3 decades ahead of China and Russia. We literally have UFO black ops super spooky tier aircraft as well like the TR19

probably denmark

The rest of the world wins an overwhelming victory as they outnumber the US by the billions

It doesnt matter if the US uses nukes, because it's not enough to cover the populated areas. Also, since the US has more densly populated cities than average, they will suffer heavier losses from enemy nukes.

The US will also have to ration its oil supply, something that will impede US economic growth severely as they will be limited to domestic resouces. The rest of the world will make trans-oceanic trade an extremely costly endeavour for the US.

>no nukes
Fuck off, how about we play who would win if there were no soldiers, or tanks or planes or ships.

nukes are political instruments, not war.

World embargoes US.

Cold War 2 persists until US regime change happens.

Nukes are political instruments because everyone saw what happens to a country when you drop two shitty tiny ones on two cities.

They're not weapons of war because they are THE weapons of war. There hasn't been a real war, a fight for survival because of nuclear weapons.

The US can't even defeat a bunch of snackbars in the desert
Having the most equipment makes no difference when your soldiers are shit

youtube.com/watch?v=MpPSPQq7oas

rest of the world. no country can survive autarky.

Easily the world

Americans are fat cuckbabies

>Okay, no nuclear weapons,

It depends on how much of that military Israel allows US to use

Rest of the world lol. All forgin us bases would be overrun in an instant.
All surfice us naval ships thats far from NA would be sunk by Cruisemissiles and submarines.
Us would face a global embargo and would not be able to import anything.
Us infrastructure would collapse in days due to the lack of oil.
Us airforce would have oil for bombraids to mainland europe and could probobly mosly defend NA airspace in the begining. When rest of the world mobolize their forceses in south america they can start an us mainland invation. If nukes are used everyone dies.

ew almonds have a green inside? wtf

You forgot we have infiltrated every single one of our allies and nato countries power grid. We could just flip a switch and send you back to the Stone age, you'd run out of food in a week without refrigeration

NUKES OR GTFO

Americans haven't won a war against a 1st world nation since ww2. And even than it was the Russians and British who did most of the fighting

The world.
Just by the simple fact America can't occupy every single other country, they can barely even successfully occupy a single country.

America would also fall apart when cut of from external trading partners.

Further more, your pic is the law of diminishing returns at work. America is no doubt the world's strongest military, but the cost of keeping that slight advantage is substantial.

Canadians haven't won a war against a first world nation ever.

Those aren't almonds. Those are pistachio.

>Who wins?

The Jews who sold you all those pointless weapons.

1812 You retarded burger.

Depends on the type of war, obviously.

In a conventional war for measurable military objectives such as destroy X or kill Y the USA wins hands down.

In a war of ambiguous objectives with strict rules of engagement, such as control territory for undetermined time and don't just kill everyone who opposes you, the USA loses just like every other country would. No conventional military, America's included, has ever successfully occupied an enemy nation without employing genocide or brutal authoritarian subjugation - tactics Americans would never have the spine to use.

Nobody wins. Russia vs US is enough to destroy the entire world.

Not germany

But Russia has always co-existed with immigrants from day 1. Russia itself is only the size of cali

Well we'd quickly conquer and annex Canada and Central America for security purposes, which reduces any invasion attempts to navy-only. America's navy is somewhere around 80% of the military vessels in the sea, and that would rise quickly to 100% as we systematically took out everyone else's fleets and destroyed their ports.

At that point it becomes a war of attrition. North America aside, I don't expect the USA to be able to take and hold hostile countries with boots on the ground, but we won't have to. With zero access to the sea, a fuck-ton of the hostile nations will starve (no fishing, no trade)
and will surrender. Europe is too fragmented: enough of them will surrender to allow us to get a foothold, which we could use to land troops and get forward bases going.

From there targeted strikes at the governments of those who still resist us, weaken their ability to govern, arm and encourage rebels in their borders.

The last to fall would be Russia. China will eventually fall to an internal revolt, but not Russia. Russia will sit there and defy us forever, immune to invasion, too practiced at crushing dissent. The American people wouldn't have the patience to allow us any victory there.

He said Canadians, not Brits.

That:s nonsensical. In a war of the US vs the world there will essentially be no rules of engagement on the US side, it would only hinder the others. Do you think america would give a shit about pissing off the world community they:re at war with?

>In a conventional war for measurable military objectives such as destroy X or kill Y the USA wins hands down.

So that's a clear no then, since the postulation was USA vs The World.

You can't invade any of the Asians. Invading Europe would be far more successful because it has a disproportionate amount of coastline.

You forgot that any company in the US operate with EU tecnology, Scientist and patents.
It just take Bosch to not export to the US and in 1 week most of the American production site´s where down.
Western Europe had 60 years of prosperity without any real military enemy, the Soviet´s had no interest in a large scale war.
America was a natural ally and no one would have tought it will change, but what Trump and America first minimun wage tards showed is that this friendship isn´t granted.
In the next 10 year Europe will have a huge military swing and with the increased resurces, better diplomacy it will be fucking good to be from the EU

It's a hypothetical situation, so we need to define our premises. I am assuming that, as in every other period of history, America wouldn't have the stomach to absolutely annihilate another people's nation in order to subdue them. In our history, this has happened in WII and during the US Civil War. That's it.

If what you say is true and the US is suddenly ok with killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to win, then sure I'll agree with you. I just find that scenario unlikely.

USA is very powerful, but lets be honest without nuclear it could not beat the world

Unless they actually do invade us. They did it before and frequently speak of wanting to do it again.

the world
america spends way too much money on the military to a few companies and gets very little out of it

As it stands the US military could completely destroy the combined standing militaries of the entire world, assuming it was permitted to use unrestricted force to do it. China's massive army has no force projection as is low tech. Russia's is also technological inferior, though less so. The rest of the world hasn't bothered to maintain a standing force or significant size because there are no existential threats and they free ride off of US military hegemony.

If the US had to CONQUER, as opposed to destroy...then no, I don't think even we have the force necessary to do that in any meaningful way. Insurgencies are just too cheap and effective over time compared to occupation.

America military might + British leadership = world conquest.

Military spending is largely irrelevant data. Amerisharts spend gazillions on expensive toys and new supercarriers which would be useless in a war against an actual great power with advanced missile technology like Russia or China.

Nobody would be able to achieve "total military domination" over the US simply due to its geographic location, but on the other hand I don't believe the US military would be able to subjugate either Russia, China, or even Iran in a conventional war. The only one of their "enemies" I can realistically see them defeating at this point is North Korea.

rest of the world decides to not invade the US, as any land conquest is too much effort for too little payoff, no natural resources to take advantage of

us airstrikes schools for 2 years before trying land invasion, then gets stopped about 5 meters inland due to shit ground troops before pelting everything with more airstrikes
US special forces then raid 2 gorillion insignificant targets.
after 100 years of complete standstill due to american shit troops and stupid amount of airstrikes, us president decides to suggest lowering military budget then gets shot by random redneck with AR15
after another 200 years UN has finished paperwork and cuts off american supply of beef and other cattle, Mcdonalds shuts down and america loses all morale
french surrender and italy changes sides 3 times
no winner

Sure. Even if could it does not change the situation much. They would have to fix it yes but how long will that take? Meanwhile the us powergrid is powered by fixed structures that are ez targets. The powerplants would ofcorse be defended but its enough to hurt the surrounding infrastructure

Pfft, the World would win hands down. America relies far too much on it's airpower, and it's been fighting (and training to fight against) Durka-Durks for the last few decades.

European/Russian tech and anti-air is on par with the US, not too sure about China but they also have resources/production/manpower.

The down-side to fancy and complex planes is that they are hard to replace quickly when shot down (and no, burgers, your planes aren't invincible). America doesn't have the ability to replace their mechanical losses as quickly as they would lose them, and without their airsupport their troops are...

Well...

Lacking.

most of that goes into the secret space fleet program
youtube.com/watch?v=YnlaNR0iTek

>implying all-out-war will ever happen between superpowers
The jew can't and won't allow that. A couple of sand niggers duking it out for territory doesn't phase Schlomo.

nice try Billy-Bob

America still have not been able to win in Afghanistan. Literally the poorest muslim country in the world with the worst equipped opposition.

This thread is childish as fuck, literal underrated b& playing with make believe armies. Anyone who genuinely thinks global wars are possible in this day and age outside of small proxy conflicts or a full scale MAD nuclear holocaust is ignorant. And it doesn't even have anything to do with nukes, countries care more for their economy than petty and costly wars, and the end product of globalization and how deeply interconnected the world's trade links have become has lead to a situation where even a mentally ill despot like Kim Jong Un wouldn't dare attack anyone despite all the rhetoric.