If the entire world teamed up could we defeat the USA in a conventional war?

If the entire world teamed up could we defeat the USA in a conventional war?

Other urls found in this thread:

vice.com/en_us/article/ppmyvb/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

stop making bad threads

Yes.
Just send forward African, Chinese and Indian hordes armed with sticks.

I mean....

No. The US is in a ridiculously favorable position, with two oceans protecting it on each side and the world's largest navy by far.

yes

Of course. We could just arm up the world with first world tech. While the USA doesn't have the capacity to do anything.

i remember last week someone bought up of a scenario where the government vs a rebel group civil war in america happened and that it would be most likely that america's allies would support the government forces

If nobody use nuclear weapons, we could easily defeat them. China, France, Russia and India have really powerful army.

>France

>China, France, Russia and India have really powerful army.
>army
Is that army planning to swim here?

it doesn't matter, you'd be too outnumbered and the rest of the world would outproduce and outpace you in all ways

assuming it's an all out war where any sort of sacrifice is acceptable, you might have a lead at first but the eventual conclusion is inevitable

that goes both if nukes were used and if they weren't, though the end would come a lot sooner if they were

Damn...
Can you imagine being harassed by this 3 women?
>"Go back to your country Spic!"
While they force you to lick their boots.
My dick...

They will make a floating bridge in Alaska

Serious answer: Not a chance. Americans have been made tough from the struggles of everyday life such as school shootings while Europeans have let themselves got effeminated pretty hard.

You really think America could stop the entire world's navies and airforces if they all attacked in unison? You think they couldn't land in Mexico and Canada and attack from the South and completely unguarded North?

No shit, it'd include vietnam.

This, and all the US bases in foriegn counties would wage deep warfare and distrupt supply lines.

>implying the US national guard and state armies couldn't take over canada

They probably could but there's still a fuckton of unguarded empty land that could be used as a landing ground for invasion.

We could drop dna ancestry testing kits all over America in order to subdue them, and while their population and soldiers are busy doing their dna ancestry tests we could take over.

Desu, the USA's police force could probably conquer us

Also, any NATO or NATO allied country gets ibstantly grounded as the CIA activates the backdoors in all of their American Jets

The American police can't even conquer some hood niggers.

Out of all of you only Rajeev has the right idea. Superpower 2020.

My name is Rahul not rajeev racist bigot.

>invasion
Of what? North Dakota? Congrats on occupying a bunch of nothing.

>outproduce and outpace you in all ways
This isn't WWII, and we won't be as patient as we were then. We have such a substantial lead in military power that any hint of what OP described would result in us leveling cities before the factories to build the bombs against us can even be built.
>that goes both if nukes were used and if they weren't
If nukes get used on us, we take out the whole planet. If we go down, we're taking the world with us. If you don't believe me, start reading the Book of Revelations.
>completely unguarded North
It's guarded

>We have such a substantial lead in military power that any hint of what OP described would result in us leveling cities before the factories to build the bombs against us can even be built.
You don't have enough to spread yourselves that widely. You would win if you were free to just bomb shit everywhere without opposition, or if you could focus on a narrower set of targets to dominate. But actually conquering the entire world at once is far beyond the scope of possibility.

>If nukes get used on us, we take out the whole planet.
You don't have enough nukes to saturate the whole planet, while the rest of the world has enough to saturate the USA. What would be left in the short term is a good portion of the population still alive, mostly rural, with a small fraction of the industry still intact, in both america and the rest of the world. But america would be hit far, far harder. It's a simple matter of geography and math. The long term consequences, of course, would likely be far worse for everyone, but again the fact that you'd be left as that much more of a radioactive crater as everyone else wouldn't do you any favors.

How many years in Iraq, Afghanistan and still didn't win

>conquering
That would not be the goal. Destruction is more likely.
>You don't have enough nukes to saturate the whole planet
No, but we do have enough to make the planet inhospitable to human life. Again, we wouldn't be interested in winning as much as making sure everyone else suffers. If we know we're going to fall, why wouldn't we go kamikaze?

Please, Russia and China alone would destroy America

Because the president isn't you and you're just a fat lard lurking Sup Forums.

India/Russia/China could do it by themselves.

>That would not be the goal. Destruction is more likely.
You couldn't freely destroy shit everywhere, as you'd be facing effective albeit inferior opposition. Sure, if you focused your forces on any single target you could annihilate it, but there would be far too many targets in far too many varied parts of the world for you manage it in a short enough span of time.

That's the point of what I said, you'd have to choose between either trying to firebomb everywhere at once, in which case most of the fronts of battle that would open up would be too much for your severely divided forces, or you'd have to focus on a narrower set of fronts and thereby allowing the majority of the world to act freely to your eventual detriment.

It's a no-win scenario for you.

>No, but we do have enough to make the planet inhospitable to human life.
So does the rest of the world, and they'd have to be operating under a similar omnicidal insanity to yours for this entire scenario to make sense in the first place.

>USA
>conventional
>Guantamo fucking bay

>Because the president isn't you
He's far less reasonable than most people. Besides, the president isn't the only one with the ability to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
>and you're just a fat lard lurking Sup Forums.
I'm not fat.
>India/Russia/China could do it by themselves.
Why include India?
>trying to firebomb everywhere at once, in which case most of the fronts of battle that would open up
That doesn't matter. Ground fighting is a moot point. We're not aiming for occupation; just destruction.
>they'd have to be operating under a similar omnicidal insanity to yours for this entire scenario to make sense in the first place
Exactly, nobody could win in this scenario. It's just Armageddon (don't forget that we're all apocalyptic religious nutjobs).
>2018
>still being outraged by gitmo
Something tells me you or your parents aren't from Austria.

I would defend this country and more importantly its lolis to the death

>That doesn't matter. Ground fighting is a moot point. We're not aiming for occupation; just destruction.
It does matter, since the majority of the world does have air defense that's effective enough to stop you from freely bombing shit unopposed.

>Exactly, nobody could win in this scenario. It's just Armageddon (don't forget that we're all apocalyptic religious nutjobs).
Not quite if you ask me. I'm of the opinion that even if 99.99% of humanity dies, that's still very far from us completely dying out. And just because survival becomes a lot harder, that doesn't mean it's impossible. That's why I said that being that much more saturated with nuke craters would make a difference.

Cyber warfare changes this favorable position. The russians already fucked your democracy.

That, with terror atacks and nuclear subs can disrupt your status quo.

Yes. Americans are pussies when shit hits the fan, despite their "a gun in every bush".
Really, the entire world would win just because of numbers also imagine America getting an embargo, they would have also convince a nation of libertarians and bankers to switch to a war-rationing economy. Remember all those left-leaning universities? Think of how they would react to a draft, no really imagine a blue-dyed soyboy getting a mandatory draft.
Throw out any idea of secrecy out, since 1. they do have good intelligence, 2. many countries are puppet states, 3. getting embargoed by every country would be noticeable. So the first priority would be getting all the foreign-stationed troops (450 thousand), this would be a pain in the ass, I don't think the concept of guerrilla warfare is foreign to them, however these are not the patriotic Americans of WW2. Also they are not fighting alone, they are fighting alongside foreign nationals (like the Légion étrangère). Anyways, doable.
Second, fortifying the shit out of ports. Although I think they won't exactly manage to churn out sea-ready marines en masse to send them to storm our beaches, do not forget about the remaining >850 thousand remaining troops. I do not even consider Canada being able to get their shit together to blitzkrieg the mid-western region (also known as the manufacturing and agricultural center of America). Rust-belt is politically important, however neglecting it would be a mistake. We would have to rely on the East-Asians and Russia (if they could transfer their troops from Siberia to the Eastern front in the 1940s they can sure as hell do similar now)
I expect California to be easy taking, because of how politically subverted they are, so the west of America could be a good start. Propaganda will help to bring out the anti-war sentiment of the people.
Illegal mexicans could be used to wage passive guerilla warfare on the locals by simply not working and ruining equipment.

Personally a good and quick carpet-bombing of Washington D.C. would probably be a good way to start the war (if a bunch of ill-trained terrorists managed to get the twin towers, I don't think this would be difficult). I would expect the madman to do a 1942 September 24th Hitler and start playing war-general.

Hypothetically if Trump will actually get around to building the wall and actually finishes it, a great amount of progress could be done from Mexico's side in making a Marginot line. Fortifying Latin America would also be great from a supply perspective.

Honestly, this whole war would be a question of planning and timing. If we also look at the way the generals have been handling themselves in the middle east (read: fucking pathetic, read up on their blunders), we have major, major strategic advantage from having the madmen of Russias generals on our side.

also, this is assuming no nukes, otherwise I don't fucking know what happens.

>You really think America could stop the entire world's navies and airforces if they all attacked in unison
Yeah

That is your great weakness.

The only thing the entire world needs to do is to team up in doing nothing, until their school shootings, education or deteriorating social issues leads to a civil war. The only reason why its still standing is, because they always find an foreign enemy to turn the attention of the populace into a different direction.

in addendum, even if we win the war, do not forget that Americans are cunts. They will put up resistance at least for 1-2 generations until the brainwashing is done, if denazification could have been done because of >6 million Jews, imagine if we remind the average American of all the inhumane atrocities they have committed as a nation?

>they would have also convince a nation of libertarians and bankers to switch to a war-rationing economy
You know we've done this twice already? The Japanese and Germans were both absolutely convinced that the United States was too decadent to fight back.

Russia has submarines and a few carriers
China is building tons of carriers i believe
Dont know about france

do you think this is reddit?

Only if you could destroy their GPS system. Otherwise they know where you are at any given moment, and can disrupt your GPS usage which is very important for modern armies.

Any enemy of the US is welcome in Mexico. We can help you get in from the South.

Vice already asked this:

vice.com/en_us/article/ppmyvb/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states

Wtf, I love Mexico, now!

We'd get our shite kicked in.

doens't work for russia and china they have ther own analogs of GPS

you are thinking of a proud America, an America that got together to defeat the economic depression. You are thinking of a generation of Americans, who after defeating their enemies out of good will and morality restored the economic prosperity of the war-torn countries. You are thinking of an America, where the average kid grew up being taught to admire other countries, when war manuals taught to respect other cultures and not impose their superiority, but instead fight brotherly against the enemy.

you are thinking of an America where you could work a simple job and afford to buy a house and a car. You are thinking of an America where foreign immigrants went to achieve prosperity.

you still believe in the American dream.

You are living in the past.

Easily. Just have china cut all trade to the USA and middle east cut all oil trade. In a couple of months USA is in ruins.

>You are thinking of an America, where the average kid grew up being taught to admire other countries, when war manuals taught to respect other cultures and not impose their superiority, but instead fight brotherly against the enemy.
That was literally not a thing. If you think American attitudes towards the rest of the world are backwards today, you would be surprised to find out how much an American of the early 20th century hated foreigners, especially those from continental Europe. We considered European society to be hopelessly rotten and wanted as little to do with it as possible, outside of upper class kids LARPing around Paris.

We actually have more than enough oil on the continent to fuel our war effort, and imports make up less than 15% of GDP. We're one of the least economically-integrated countries in the modern world.

Yeah, it sucks that the entire country is now just one big Detroit. Things are so, so bad here... Please send help.

Kek, the first thing that would happen is that those bases would've their supply lines cut.

What parts of Europe did the Johnson–Reed Act aim at?
From when and why did America try to be isolationist?
What preceded the Fulbright Program?

Here is a simpler one, that even a few wikipedia articles will suffice:
Who was George Gershwin?

you are hopelessly misread.

you can't read, and you straw-man to win an argument, typical American.

With the forces as they exist, US won't lose.
If the rest of the world was truly committed and willing to spend 50% of GDP to building up forces in Mexico, Caribbean islands, and Canada, US would surely lose.

We're talking about the united WORLD , can you imagine the entire world producing guns, boats and planes to fight the USA?
Sure the USA is big and strong now, but it is also the head of the largest security aliance and spends much more then other countries to keep it's lead.
It may take a while but sheer numbers and resuources will push the USA off the seas, then off the shores, off the planes and out of existance.

>Conventional War
Does that include espionage, diplomacy and hacking? If so, Britain could beat them by itself.
Else, yes, Britain + France + Germany could beat them if they spent more money on training and advancing military tech.

You underestimate subs, how big the sea is and how shit your navy is.
Also aircraft carriers exist, even if they are just walking ducks by themselves.

Americans aren't very intelligent, nor creative. Your communication is all electrically based, so disabling them is typically what happens first, meaning the President has to write a letter or visit every silo and submarine to get permission for the nuke launch.

Also, it would be entirely possible to launch an attack on American beaches. Yes, you'd probably spot us, but if we shut down communications in America, then it would be too late to muster a fleet.
Even if you did spot us and mustered a fleet, you would have to deal with a barrage of air-borne and ship-borne missiles.

Obviously.
Not even the US could stand aggainst the whole world aggainst them when nukes are out of the picture.
Don't mind the american posters telling otherwise; They're the only ones doing so.

Bad idea, eh?
Because, you know, if you kill your enemies, they win.
So we've got that going for us.

>we do have enough to make the planet inhospitable to human life.

This is a false statement.
The nukes you possess aren't nearly enough to cause a worldwide nuclear fallout, as in a consistent shooting of smoke and debris higher than the 20k meters mark, among other technical aspects

I'm pretty sure any country could be defeated if every other country in the world ganged up on them. Even with all the guns we have it's pretty much simple math that we'd get fucked.

Buying ads on facebook isn't cyber warfare

DO NOT trust Pajeets.
Once we are out on the frontlines, they will go on a mass raping spree!!!

You only need Mexico to defeat USA in fact they're already half done.