US vs Everyone that matters

Could the United States win a war against the other global powers. I'm not talking nuclear but a conventional war between the US vs EU, Russia, China?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/fragging-vietnam-officers-claimed-feared-deliberately-killed-men.html
historynet.com/the-hard-truth-about-fragging.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

one swedish sub could take out your entire navy

depends, will US mil take help from citizens?

*blocks your path*

kek

I wouldn't fight to preserve a multicultural america and i know i'm not alone in that sentiment so probably not.

If you are truly talking about conventional warfare it would be a long conflict. The United States policy for warfare has been "Control and Maintain" for many years. The first step on that is the US would use its overwhelming airforce and navy to rest control of the sea and air. Most likely disrupting trade in the process.

The second phase would be using the airforce to destroy strategic locations in enemy territory which is something we are very proficient at.

The third phase would be to get boots on the ground to encounter an already weakened enemy.

The fourth would be an anvil and hammer tactic of using the airforce and artillery as the anvil to bomb enemy positions then using the armor and infantry to hammer the enemy.

When it comes to guerilla warfare we are terrible at defeating it but you can say that about any modern army, but when the enemy has a uniform and it is conventional the US has had constant war for the last 200 years to harden us to be the best at this art.

US loses: 58000
Vietkang loses: 1 mil+

We won every battle of that war but due to political pussyfooting and not being able to enter North Vietnam because "Mah Nuclear War" we had to pull out. If it wasnt for those 2 factors the vietkong would have been completely crushed

no lol
I mean it's not like anyone could invade America either (without Canadian and Mexican help, and that would be preempted).

US is complete shit at war

it's not

It depends on several factors. What counts as "winning" for either side?

If winning means taking control of the opponent's territory, then there's no way in hell the USA would lose:

There are more guns in the United States than everywhere else on the planet combined. 300 million armed citizens defending their country against maybe 30 million soldiers (maximum) from Russia, China and the EU? There's a clear winner in that scenario, not to mention that there's no way Russia, China or the EU have the logistical means of transporting more than a million soldiers across either the Atlantic or Pacific within a short enough time frame to pose any threat to the 300 million strong American militia.

On the other hand, it's unlikely the USA could win without using nuclear weapons for the same reason. Of all the major powers in the world, the USA has the greatest logistics, but even then they wouldn't be able to move enough equipment or soldiers to fight one war let alone 3 wars simultaneously on the other side of the planet.

In summary: neither side could win nor lose. Without nuclear weapons the war would be a stalemate resulting in the deaths of tens of millions.

Hell no. You'd struggle against the EU and China each on their own. Russia would just wear you down then invade, like they did to the Germans in Global Scuffle the Second.
All three against you and you'll be buying Russian gas, making sneakers in chinese sweatshops and sending refugees to the EU within a year.

guns don't matter that much
not every American would fight
most of Americans aren't some hardy rednecks
"le rifle behind every bush" is a meme, especially in 21st century

no the US is quite shitty by itself despite spending so much on the military, They spend by far the most on healthcare and their healthcare is the shittiest as well it mostly goes towards corruption screw drivers that cost like 1000 dollars and trans surgeries the US spends a billion every 4 days in Afghanistan in comparison Russia has spent 2 billion on their entire campaign in Syria.

Lelelel keep thinking that.
t. Battle rifle owner

Fine, 30 million. Doesn't make a difference because it would take China, Russia and the EU years to transport even a million soldiers to the American shores.

Let's talk about some of the problems with the US military capability

>US foreign policy is up for the highest bidder
Foreign governments are openly allowed to lobby the US government to get wars they want. If Saudi Arabia needs something, they just pick up a phone and move some money around, two days later some US commandos are off on a spec ops mission

>US defense industry is dominated by bloated contractors who rob the taxpayer blind
Working for the government they can charge three times as much, and deliver a shitty product. They can then use their profits to invest in lobbyists and advertising to sell their brand name to legislators and military commanders. This means the US is burdened with all these inefficient, ineffective, illogical weapons systems.

>Policy of affirmative action
Of course they put the black general in charge of the nukes, what could possibly go wrong? Oh and by the way, we haven't maintained our nukes in 50 years, because who knows why.

Trannies, women, and diversity are way overrepresented among ranking military, because of the craving for diversity quotas.
They're even trying to shoehorn women into elite units.

1 chinkchong with a rifle could ground at least 2 of those shitbirds

USA could litterally fend off against the entire world for over 2 years on their own.

you =/= most of Americans
don't be deluded
not years but yeah it would be quite a challenge and as I said in a hypothetical scenario Americans would probably control Mexico and Canada
I don't think there's enough port capacity in either to sustain an invasion of mainland USA in any case
plus USN is stronger than all other fleets of the world combined

>300 million strong American militia.
Do you think ALL women and children fight and/or own guns? Blacks and whites and spics and kikes all fighting together for the glory of Greater Dumbfuckistan? All US citizens are highly trained soldiers? You GROSSLY overestimate the american "militias". The american people have no sense of self-sacrifice or unity like the vietnamese or the russians. They would break down to Africa-tier warlords-using-child-soldiers-to-kill-eachother mode in a matter of weeks after an initial invasion.

>coping

>We killed between 4% to 10% of the entire population of vietnam
>still lose
it hurts

Depends. Are the Chinese chips in our weapons a problem, if even in them? Can our advanced weapons be hacked or disrupted? Can the navy stop ramming other ships? Hard to say.

2 and 3 are correct but you made a general statement (Americans are shit at war), when historically Americans did okay, even though of course you exaggerate some things for nationalist reasons
problems will just hurt your effectiveness but US military is still very strong
as a side note, most impressive thing about American war performance in WW2 was how quickly they picked up
keep in mind US Army was like 4 divisions and a cavalry division before WW2

United States will do whatever Jakey Rothschild and the city of London tell him too since they're a colony.

>a monteniggero citizen thinks Americans buy guns to not use them
people who buy them WANT to kill people, they're just waiting for the legal incentive to do it

>pasta
Only missing the amerimutt meme
Get fucked Komrade

Special trans forces?

>The american people have no sense of self-sacrifice or unity like the vietnamese or the russians.
perhaps I'm wrong but I have the same opinion
average American just doesn't have the historical experience of adversity
ignoring war of independence and civil war, all their wars were fought away from their land (there was also war of 1812 I guess)

WIthout nukes, I say they could. The US has over 700 bases around the world. If a war broke out, they could be on the opponent's doorstep that same hour. Plus they outspend all of the major powers like China, Russia, England, France, Germany, and Japan combined. Years of money probably has developed some nice space/air weapons that can be used to btfo other countries.
Also
>1st and 2nd best airforce
>best navy
Another thing is that invading the US would be a huge issue. The gun ownership would ensure that enemy armies would be getting shot at left and right by citizens, let alone police/national guard.
That's what hundreds of billions a year on military get you. China's just growing up. Russia has somewhat kept its military together, and Europe has relied on the US for NATO. They wouldn't win.

wanting and doing are different things
it takes a lot of balls to kill and face the chance of being killed
it takes a lot of determination to fight a guerilla conflict
again, stop, Americans are not some natural warriors
there's no such thing anyway

it's not a bad k/d ratio for Vietnam they lost like a million in military casualties considering that they killed also like 350k of the South Vietnamese army and killed 75k French and captured 40k plus the 60k burgers is like 525k dead on the enemy side which is pretty good fighting France America South Vietnam and having no airforce

do you think real life is a video game, and a base somewhere is automatic win?
bases are logistic centers mostly
furthermore, just because you have something doesn't mean you can deploy it anywhere you want in relevant quantity
USA has excellent logistical capability but even going against Russia alone would strain them to their fullest, let alone going against WHOLE FUCKING WORLD

I kind of agree with the armed citizens part, although you overestimate them. Most of these armed citizens consist of a woman with a tiny pistol for protection. Not Alex Jones and Ted Nugent doomsday preppers

HMS Wasa?

You underestimate the sheer jingoism of this country. You cannot say "Americans are dumb prideful retards who shout America #1 and worship ZOG soldiers" and then go around and say that they won't fight for their country.

The last terror attack on our soil convinced our populace to happily invade two Muslim countries as revenge more than anything else.

ok burger..... Ok.
Are we including Nukes in this or ?

again, jingoism and acting upon it are different things
I'm sure some Americans would resist, but it wouldn't be the scale of Poland/USSR/Yugoslavia in WW2
depends on the invader and his behaviour I guess

>we won but we lost but we still won

So of all the wars fought on the home field, the first they sorta barely won (thanks be to France) the second they fought among themselves and the third one they lost? No wait, they also invaded mexico and barely won there too. They also barely won against a bunch of post-apocalyptic stone age tribes (they were in the stone age BEFORE their apocalypse) but that wasn't on their own land yet.

Citizens who own only one gun are literally the minority of gun owners here, kek.

they didn't barely win in Mexico though
it was a quite successful campaign

Alabama alone has more registered gun owners than the Usmc has soldiers. Good luck with over running the population.

I'm wondering even with the logistic problem where USA could attack first.

I'm guessing EU, before we unite the different national army.

good luck invading a continent across an ocean

more like
>we murdered 16 of you for every 1 of us
not quite Rhodesia tier, but viets are also not niggers...

Jingoism doesn't get people to fight. It gets them to support war. After lolnineelevenxd the whole american populace invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? That's news to me.
> they just cheered their poor, stupid mercenaries on, that's what happened and you know it

do you honestly think that this exact scenario hasnt been gamed? Strategic pull back, fortification, and then attack...

US would win if they attempted to invade CONUS. Not even some unholy RU-PRC-EUSSR alliance could manage a conventional invasion of the United States.

US would lose hard if we try to fight anywhere but our backyard - Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc.

The US military is actually pretty fucked at the moment. Only half of our B-1s can actually fly, for example, and we've wasted most of our guided munitions in the Middle East.

If a big war breaks out soon - North Korea, for example - we're going to be stretched to our limits trying to fight it.

>Jingoism doesn't get people to fight. It gets them to support war

I should have filtered you memeflags from the start

Depends on who is fighting for who.
India is turning against Globalization, Pakistan is a firm ally of China. Russia and Iran are close.
If Turkey leave NATO it truly is GG for the democratic alliances.

Here are the teams:
USA: 1,4m active training army
Japan: 250k
S/K: 625k
France: 200k
Italy: 320k
UK: 150k
Germanistan: 180k
Is it real?: 160k
Taiwan: 300k
Saud:325-480k
My proud nation: 20k (we can withstand Russia for 10 minutes at the border)

VS

China: 2,3m
India: 1,3m
Russki: 770k
Turkey 400k
Egypt 470k
Indonesia: 476k
Pakistan: 617k
Thailand? 307k
Iran 500-930k

We're fucked.

scenario of USA vs. the world?
mayb some stoned out DoD guys tried it out, but I doubt anyone gamed that seriously

The United States could literally beat the entire world at once.

You really can't be ignorant enough to believe our military is the same as it was during those times.

add N/K to the mix 1 mill

I could smash the entire US Miltiary with my limp dick

This. We're balls to the wall crazy but it really depends in the why. If Hillary started ww3 with everyone cause she's a stupid cunt etc, we'd probably revolt and help the Russians or Canadians if it meant keeping an ethnostate afterwards closer to the original founding USA. We'd fight tooth and nail to keep the Chicoms the fuck off our soil though, and any kind of La Raza shit would cause a brown genocide.

If they go trought africa first ? I don't really know man, not an expert in military strategy

>You'd struggle against the EU
user, I....

They game out all sorts of stupid shit and they do all sorts of stupid shit. America vs the world is no dumber than trying to game out a civil war in egypt or actively supplying ISIS with weapons and calling them moderates.

We could easily defend ourselves indefinitely, but we would have no bases to launch operations in theater without allies. Better question is whether the US, Britain, and ANZAC could defeat the world's militaries, and the answer is yes.

>implying Canada isn't the staging point of Chinese invasion
that's even worse than attacking directly
it's an impossible scenario though
why the fuck would whole world even try to invade USA?

Oh the mighty nation of Anzac...

The fact that there are equipment/troops everywhere is a huge tactical advantage. Aside from a few overseas bases, the other countries would have to leave from their home bases which US satellites are always watching.

I think you are thinking too much in terms of manpower. Technology is what rules warfare now, and the US has the best. The fact that most internet traffic goes through the US gives them a huge cyber advantage too.

Also, save Russia in Syria, the other countries in said conflict are rusty on warfare while the US has been doing it consistently for 100 years. I know you might hate Amerimutts, but war is the a thing they are superior at.

They for sure have a plan, just in case, they have all sorts of contingency plans. An example would be civil war. How probable is it? Very unlikely, we are a complacent people and they destroy leaders and movements like that very quickly.

I wouldn't say "invade" what I would say is, as all maniacs drunk on power are, they ultimately "want it all" simply for the aspect of absolute corruption, absolute power. Telling 10 guys to spend some time doing a work up for a month costs them nothing and now they have a framework for later.

I don't hate Americans
but you're ignoring logistical challenges of trans-oceanic warfare, and overestimating technological advantage and it's effects
this is an incredibly autistic scenario though
better question would be USA and allies vs. X and allies, specific goals, and background

> India
> On the same side as China and Pakistan

Almost certainly not. India absolutely hates both.
Furthermore, they've been moving closer to the US as our historical alliance with Pakistan falls apart thanks to the War on Terror and Pakistani nukes.

India's pretty friendly with Russia, though (used to be steadfast Soviet allies), and has joined the SCO alongside China and Pakistan.

My guess is that they'd stay neutral. If they did enter the war, though, my money is that they'd fight alongside the US - or at least, against China and Pakistan.

Egypt is a real wildcard, though. They were Soviet allies until 1973, then they were US allies up until about 2011, and now they're moving closer to Russia again. At the same time, they support US ally Saudi Arabia against Russian ally Iran in the Yemeni Civil War. I don't know where Egypt will wind up in WW3, desu.

no. the amount of naval vessels we allegedly have is padded and most of its aluminum now days. some one noticed they couldnt stick a fridge magnet to anything . they had been on another naval vessel and had stuck a pic of their gf to the wall over their bed with a fridge magnet. magnets stick to steel and they decided to check the entire ship since it was new. all of it but 1 bar that goes around the middle and the captains quarters isnt steel

also american subs were killing themselves doing a drill they were ordered to do which requires they go to a specific depth and the aluminum ones cant go as far down as the steel ones. the aluminum ones crumple

why is it aluminum instead of steel? america cant afford steel. china dumped 5 tril into military spending a couple years ago but with their buying power its way more than america can keep up with. the american military opted for greater numbers and less survivability

thats why the navy fled from the iranian coast guard. some one with a 9mm hand gun can put holes in our carriers and battle ships

Too bad you'll stay neutral, you merchants.

The US could win a conventional war against the other 193 nations of earth even if they all teamed up against us. We control the world's #1 Air Force, the #1 Navy, the #2 Air Force (USN), and millions of troops available with over 100 million gun owners in the civilian population.

Our Navy/Air Force components are larger than any other on earth by orders of magnitude. We have more combat experience than any other country on the planet. No single foreign troop would be able to set foot on US soil.

We won the war. We lost diplomatically.

you morons couldn't even beat russia in a convential war plus what do you have to fight for?? the jews??? fuck the usa it needs to fall as soon as possible...

>16 of you for every 1 of us
Face it you lost hard. Even without the pressure at home your army was in tatters. The psychological war is what got you.
Those 16/1 odds were mostly due to carpet bombing, napalm and agent orange.
As for the psychological state of your troops near the end of the war, I suggest you look up the practice of "fragging". I'll tell you this: it meant killing your CO, or any superior, and it was a very common practice.
Just some food for thought.
> be US marine.
> best and most expensive military training and equipment, told you're the best warrior in the world
> get sent to vietnam
> go to jungle
> get whole platoon wiped out by handful of peasant-soldiers (that cost next to nothing to train and equip) armed with pointy shit-sticks
> youliedtome.jpg
> go back to base
> stuff live grenade down sarge's pants
And so it went on.

This is entirely accurate. People pretending a bunch of ant people defeated us in battle while wielding shovels are retarded.

My answer was to the macedonian, it was irrelevant to the current discussion.

you just fucked your argument when you said "go look it up"

Former low level military commander in an EU country here (don't care if you believe me)

1. There is no feasible, within the real of possibility, way for the US or Russia to invade each other. Neither one can successfully invade and hold the other. This is out of the question and has been known in NATO circles since the 60s.

2. USA could take on China, you could also take on EU, but not both. The Chinese are simply too much, no way around that.

3. You are SEVERELY underestimating the capabilities of the Russians. Russian tech is way ahead of yours in some areas (hypersonic anti-ship missiles, ewar, SAM complexes) just like you are ahead of them in other areas (stealth, logistics).(PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEXT SENTENCE BEFORE YOU GET BUTTHURT) That is completely normal since you have different doctrines .

The USA is essentially an island country en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History that relies on air power (why you need stealth), control of the seas and debarkation (why you need logistics) in order to dominate, in other words you need to go to the enemy over water, hence you concentrate on attack. Russia is a land power that doesn't need to go anywhere like you, hence they concentrate on defence: on anti-air (air being your strong point) and anti-ship (again control of the seas being a prerequisite for you). If they need they can deploy huge tanks armies to control the land around them.

Again you can't successfully win against Russia let alone the fight you put together in the OP.

usa can't even beat Afghanistan in conventional warfare what do you think would happen if you faced off against russia and the rest of the world...you american jewish pigs would die quick

>Not a meme

>ewar
many people find this hard to believe, but it's true
Russia is quite ahead of USA in terms of electronic warfare
in case of a conventional conflict, their superiority would give a major headache to US troops

>70% of US military tech is built in Germany, Canada and France
>oil consumption in peace time twice bigger than production
>absolutely terrible logistics - you have to make special fuel for tanks M1A2, different fuel for different types of jets, not mention overweighted tanks
>population of soy bois who can't endure deseases, cold, starvation and misery

I dunno. Could you?

lol
ancomm cuck

Yeah well the army made a huge deal about real numbers not getting out that goes on to this day. Even if the limited numbers you post there were true (they most likely are not) the threat was still there, and its effect on morale was devastating.
warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/fragging-vietnam-officers-claimed-feared-deliberately-killed-men.html
historynet.com/the-hard-truth-about-fragging.htm

Not much ahead. I mean Krasukha and other complexes can shut down electronics and GPS, but you still can fight in WW2 style, orientate by sun, stars and compass.

>"cuck cuck cuck"
What are you, some kind of retarded chicken?
> inb4 "kike kike kike"

You're retarded. We defeated communism.

>absolutely terrible logistics
go read about the logistical side of VII Corp's left hook maneuver to take out the RGFC during desert storm. you're entirely wrong.

I'll take the sourced "few hundred" over the "nearly 1000 CITATION NEEDED"
We had 58k casualties, a few hundred alleged incidents of mutiny ain't shit considering the context.

American doctrine depends too much on that, and they take it for granted

The US army is just a lot of hype with no substance. The only reason why the American govt. spends so much money on their military is because they know their troops are a bunch of scared and incompetent kids, and they're desperately trying to hide that fact behind fancy equipment and big spending bills. Newsflash, kiddo! A couple hundred rice farmers or opium traders can completely stop the entire US army in their tracks. Against any REAL global power the US would be absolutely FUCKED. Trust me, it's just a matter of time before we see a Chinese, Russian, or even Norwegian flag flying over the White House.

if vietnam fucking shits are the most powerful race in the world, how come they got trolled so easily by our high speed low drag dudes?

You can't project force without any vassal state.

Invade with what? Fishing boats?

There is literally no country on the planet with the naval capability to invade the US.

The initial conflicts would be devastating, but the US military unlike others has proven abilities to remain in the game. The issue of logistics is important because that is how a country remains capable. The US has superior logistics via ground, sea, and air to move supplies and troops very rapidly. Russia and China both have limited access in and out of their countries and very little global reach with respects to logistics. This means troops run out of food, ammo, and become disillusioned.
And that is your answer: the US military would suffer greatly on first strikes, but once civilian reserve air fleets and the civilian reserve forces kick in, the long term war becomes the US's to manage.

>we wont every battle but not the war

YAY WE WON LOL

no, now fuck off with your shit tier bait

Win the war sure. But occupation would be a bitch.
If we forget press, if we forget the need to occupy.
Simply bomb into submission, conventionally.

Sure. Why the hell not.

This is all I have. I conceal carry it sometimes. Don't really have a need for anything else. If there is an invasion we're fucked anyhow.

>successfully bomb into oblivion the country with the best anti-air in the world

I'm out, this gets on my nervers