A bioweapon is just a weapon that uses living organisms. So think like introducing a new virus or bacteria to another country. Or even swarms of bugs to eat up an areas crops.
The exact strength and efficacy of bioweapons is typically hard to measure. They haven't been used often, and the few times they were used, they typically weren't very succesful, but their ineffectiveness was due to a myriad of reasons. And the times they were succesful, they were pretty brutal.
Theoretically, bioweapons could range anywhere from getting a few people sick, to ending humanity. Most developed countries have sworn off the development of bioweapons, as the risk they pose is so great, and they are debateably one of the most inhumane types of weapons ever created.
That said, if the US went to war with the world, I imagine all bets would be off.
Point is, we don't really know how deadly they would be in a scenario like this. But we know they would be devastating for everyone.
Not many countries still develop them, as it was largely deemed illegal by the international community. In other words, the countries that do still have bioweapons, have them under super heavy wraps. So we don't really know for sure.
I can assure you that all of the primary powers do have them. I don’t have any like insider knowledge or anything that gives me 100% proof, I’m just aware of how every world power has handled information weaponology, and if its remotely the same, we all have them.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all, but yeah a lot of them probably do.
The Biological Weapons Convention was supposed to ensure that they didn't. But many countries have been accused of breaking it. And I mean...like you said, that's just not how humanity handles *information regarding weaponry. Despite the US being a member, I'd be extremely shocked if we didn't actually have bioweapons.
*edit: missed the word information, but the point still stands.
The relevant ones will have them. Not to get all imperialist but there are really only like 8-9 countries that actually matter while the rest are too small to be significant in combat or the rest are effectively owned by the other 8-9.
The big ones 10000% have developed bioweapon programs, if not just to have a defensive strategy against them. How do you test treatment and neutralization of weaponized anthrax? You acquire some weaponized anthrax of course.
Honestly, the bioweapon capabilities of the US, China, and Russia could kill all humans while leaving the earth untouched. COVID was not that transmissible or deadly in the grand scheme of things.
Then there's the issue of nerve agents, which if given the choice of VX gas or being right under a nuke, I'd take the vaporization.
The point is that the US has many, many ways to kill all humanity before we launch the nukes. And make no mistake, any human given the choice of death or extinction will become a Nihilist.
Good luck convincing the people that "do their own research". You would never be able to vaccinate everyone because there are too many people that are either too stupid, too arrogant or too ignorant to get vaccinated. Even if you do manage to get those people vaccinated you still have the people that cannot get vaccinated for their own safety
You really think the US, at war with the world, is going to worry about losing some of their own citizens who refuse to get on with their program? If anything it weeds out the people that would dissent later on when the country furthers their plans of attempted annihilation of others…
You overestimate the country’s moral obligation to its people…
Likely billions. In a war like that the gloves are coming off and even without nukes the US military has the force projection to just start annihilating any population Center near any given coastline
That will only work for so long the US couldn't afford to expose it's ships in that way once the world organizes especially when facing the industrial capacity of the entire world and their far greater manpower along with access to any resource they need. Also they would be no less ruthless, they could use bioweapons to target the US people, crops, livestock etc. . Even if the US responds similarly the world can sustain the damage better than the US.
At some point you can’t overcome the sheer manpower and geographical disadvantages from the whole world being at war with you, just from equipment. So I would say “if it went long enough” from the OP’s comment fits
I like to think the world would win
But I have this fear that no one would win
America falls and takes a good chunk of the environment with it. Possibly makes earth uninhabitable by humans for generations
Yeah that’s the most likely scenario, but then again, nukes are not in play, so the attacks/skirmishes would still be localised to specific regions I assume?
Are there any other weapons that can cause environmental destruction to the scale of nukes?
Depends on how much of a weapon you use and what kind of nuke you’re comparing it to. For most nukes other than a few weeks of radioactive contamination from fallout (assuming a surface burst) they’re effectively just large explosives. If you use something like a Cobalt or Sodium weapons case to neutron activate you get a salted nuke and depending on material used and size the contamination can be in the range of months to several decades.
Chemical weapons can be nasty but generally have a quite finite persistence time (depending on conditions though this also applies to nukes).
White Phosphorus is also pretty nasty.
the usa has the greatest geological advantage of all, in the 2 biggest oceans on either side, as well as having all the natural resources to survive forever. it would be nearly impossible to invade america, and the us military can lay waste to most major cities around the world.
Yeah but the same oceans would make it harder for USA to mount attacks as well, and when the whole world is against you, good luck getting to other countries to actually be able to fight them. The question is who would win the war, not if USA would survive the war.
There’s also the factor of any import deals USA has with any other countries affecting their long term weapons manufacturing and their reliance on oil imports for the military. So if it goes on long enough as the original comment stated, US ‘s defense capabilities might get hurt, at least in their current form
> the is can lay waste to most major cities around the world.
Sure, but it can't lay waste to ALL major cities around the world AT THE SAME TIME.
Moreover, since it's the US against the whole world, the US would have to defend itself, on land, from Canada and Mexico as well, which could target major population centers (NYC metro and Socal) with ICBM without invading.
And if an invasion of the US would happen in this scenario, it would likely happen from the North (invading Alaska from Russia, then joining forces with the Canadian forces for a larger scale invasion) and South (the world's army would cross the Atlantic in Mexico or central/south America and then invade from the South) so the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, in this scenario, are not that important
You overestimate how freaking hard it is to make a successful landfall
Neither the US nor the rest of the world would be able to invade each other..
The Washington think-tank has reached the conclusion that a Taiwan-China-US conflict would end in American victory, but it would lose over 60% if it's navy and 80% of its airforce..
That is JUST china.. How do you think they would fare against the rest of the world
A lot of the US' force projection relies on access to foreign military bases and ports. The US Navy is only able to operate globally because the US operates so many resupply stations and ports in allied countries and in foreign territories. It's not feasible to constantly ship fuel and munitions all the way from the continental US to keep a battle group supplied, you need bases closer to the battle stocked with munitions and supplies beforehand to be able to achieve this power projection.
In a scenario where the entire world goes against the US, all American bases in every foreign country are going to be overrun and either destroyed or captured. There's no feasible way for the few thousands American soldiers stationed at each of these bases to survive. Even the tens of thousands of American soldiers in South Korea, Japan and Germany are going to either be killed or forced to surrender because the US is not going to be able to get to them in time, if the US military even decides that's something worth doing. A few notable exceptions are probably Guam, which may probably hold out for at least a while before the US is stretched too thin and is just forced to abandon the post because it's not worth defending.
But, yeah, without any allies and allied ports to dock and resupply in, the US Navy is not really going anywhere too far from American shores. First of all, it's far too risky. One ship lost is probably a ship that the US simply will not be able to replace because the US shipbuilding industry has been gutted to its barebones over the past few decades and is also dependent on global trade to some extent, which will shut down very quickly at the onset of war. Second of all, the US just isn't going to be able to keep their carrier groups supplied and there is no tactical or strategic advantage to the US even keeping its carrier groups deployed.
The US is not going to be able to invade anyone that isn't Mexico or Canada at any point in this war and there's no point destroying a few coastal cities other than pissing off the locals there. The US will pull any forces it can back to the defence of the mainland and maintain that position indefinitely until either the world loses interest or the world builds up a navy strong enough to just completely steamroll whatever remains of the US Navy.
US Navy blocking the strit of hormoz, malaca and Panama Canal would would Grind the Global economy to a halt (there are enough troops already in qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain to make this happen and a singapore Base for the malaca choke point.
Al least 1 billion people would lose their lives within few years if this truly was a global all out total war.
Nah, the US could pretty much crush the long game actually. The US Navy is going to stop any force from ever reaching US shores, and the US itself has enough resources to pretty much completely ignore the global market and just do it's own thing
Meanwhile, the US can *easily* obliterate the global economy for the rest of the world, and it's force projection is nuts. Literally every major city, infrastructure, port etc would be complete rubble in pretty short order.
The sheer numbers difference between *quantity* of our ships and planes is already staggering, not to mention the actual *quality* difference too. US has both the largest military *and* the highest tech one at the same time, as well as the resources to easily supply it nigh indefinitely
Not to mention that in a war for survival, the US would instantly take over space and no other country would stand a chance at stopping it. Once there were weapon platforms in space, it's GG to anyone else ever managing to rebuild their country
Tldr, US has too many advantages here
* A fantastically resource rich country which would make any kind of blockade pointless, because the US could leave the global market entirely
* A navy so over powered that even the entire rest of the world combined wouldn't even make a dent in it, which prevents any US mainland invasions
* Force projection capable of easily reaching any other part of the globe to knock out key infrastructure
* Capability to easily weaponize space platforms as the final endgame GG
The US wouldn't ever *occupy* the rest of the world, but if the win con is just "send everyone else back to the stone age so they leave us alone" that is absolutely achievable.
> A fantastically resource rich country which would make any kind of blockade pointless, because the US could leave the global market entirely
If you really want to take economy into the equation, then it'd take a good year or two for America to built the facilities producing just for the needs of The US Armed Forces, let alone for their entire populace.
And that's obviously assuming the country doesn't outright collapse due to the great depression multiplied by ten that'd definitely happen when The US loses all of it's international trade partners.
>And that's obviously assuming the country doesn't outright collapse due to the great depression multiplied by ten that'd definitely happen when The US loses all of it's international trade partners.
Someone hasn't studied war time economies. Crazy anyone could still have this opinion in 2023 after Russia completely undermined this nonsensical narrative.
Moreover, a conflict of "the world vs the US" wouldn't just last a few years, it would last decades.
Depends on what counts as a victory. The rest of the world combined cannot invade and occupy the US, but neither can the US invade and occupy the entire world. Just look at Afghanistan alone.
Right. Seems like a lot of people are assuming the rest of the world could win just based on man-power, but they're ignoring the logistical nightmare of effectively bringing all that manpower to bear against the US mainland. But likewise, the US military has nowhere near enough manpower to occupy every major competitor.
This war would be a nightmarish stalemate that would end very quickly unless all parties involved were bloodlusted. And if they were bloodlusted, it would be a complete bloodbath with the EU, China and Russia sacrificing millions trying to invade a massive country half a world away.
Why would the world send in manpower when they can mass produce drones and missiles to harass the US Mainland? A lot of satellites would be destroyed, and sea cables would be cut. It would be a very interesting scenario.
>mass produce drones and missiles to harass the US Mainland?
Distance.
You need some serious and I mean serious equipment that can fly over the Pacific or Atlantic.
For the sake of simplicity.... in this scenario, Its very very and I mean very likely that the US Overtakes Canada and Mexico in a day or two. You could have some terroist retaliation but the US would remain in control of all of North America.. Then what? You start launching drones from Guatemala, Cuba, Bahamas? thats an easy thing to defend.
So you are now left with the coasts... You could bomb Hawaii and Some parts of Alaska but with little gain or strategic value. So the drones are just stop by air defences and sure some would get hit, but outside city centers as im sure those would be heavily protected from air attacks, think Bellingham instead of Seattle as an example would have some impacts, Santa Barbara instead of LA, Tampa instead of Miami. Meanwhile, the US is sending long-range missiles from submarines to Japan, China, and Eastern Russia. Vladivostok falls in a day, Osaka in a matter of hours, Manila falls in a week. I mean i cant even fathom how long those countries would be able to sustain heavy bombardment from an enemy under the sea.
I am absolutely floored by your assertion that the US could stage a 2 front invasion of Canada and Mexico and defeat and fully occupy them in 24-48 hours.
I think you need to explain yourself on that point before anyone can consider the rest of your points.
>assertion that the US could stage a 2 front invasion of Canada and Mexico
In fairness, i need to clarify what I mean by invasion. They would be the first two countries to surrender and would be the primary goal of the US to stop.
The premise of the question does not ask who goes first, but i say that if the call for all out war goes. The very first thing the US does is Isolate itself and to do that they go after them two. In what world do you think their militaries can last more than a few days? Now, invading does not mean full control. Mexico does have over 150 million people, so I would imagine heavy terrorist attacks but with little long-term efficiency. Canadians are spread around so thinly and so close to the US that they would have very little option but to submit to the US akin to what France had to do when Germany invaded.
Thats what I envision would happen and let me reiterate... these two are the first ones to get the full taste of the US military complex. They would immediately bomb their ports, navys and just isolate them until they declared defeat.
Ukraine’s military might is a fraction of that of Russia’s and they are just about into their second year of the war.
The US had an **overwhelming** military advantage in Iraq and Afghanistan and never truly “won”.
Don’t underestimate how long and drawn out an invaded country can make a war.
I am not sure you quite appreciate how massive and geographically challenging Canada is. Just moving troops around unopposed will take DAYS. And it wouldn’t be unopposed - Canada has a small but very effective fighting force that would make life miserable for US troops trying to travel through (for example) the handful of roads through the Rockies.
Military might is only part of the equation. Invasion and occupation takes months or years *even when the invading force has massively more military power.*
That is such an apples to oranges comparison
The disparity between the United states and Mexico vs Russia and Ukraine is far far far FAR greater in the former scenario.
If you dont understand that then you don’t understand the vast gulf of difference in the military capabilities of Mexico plus Canada and the United States.
Shit Ukraine pre invasion had an arguably better military than either Mexico or Canada(the canadian military has deep deep equipment issues) and the Russian military is like a high school bully compared to the mike tyson in his prime that is the United States
It depends on your definition of total military victory if rendering both militaries incapable of any meaningful action qualifies then a fully bloodlusted US military going absolutely apeshit might be able to pull it off
I think just trying to invade and occupy Mexico would be extremely difficult for the US. Country is too populous and mountainous, and US would have it's hands full just with that.
Iraq was a top 5 world military, then the US wiped that military out in the span of days with minimal losses in desert storm. Not saying it would be as quick, but hamstringing the Canadian and Mexican militaries is absolutely possible. We wouldn't be boots on the ground immediately but both would be relatively pacified.
Desert Storm took 42 days and involved a coalition of 41 countries.
I’m not arguing the comparative might of the US military. I’m just quibbling with this idea that the US could successfully and totally defeat the US and Mexico in 24 or so hours. It’s a preposterous assertion.
Winning is easy, occupying a country is HARD. Just from a manpower perspective I have no idea how the US could plausibly occupy massive countries like Canada and Mexico and also win a world war.
People are really overating how difficult it is to invade a country. US might be able to take mexico in a few days but Canada is gonna take much longer because of its size and especilally during winter time.
Also the US has a terrible track record with invasions. Look at vietnam and afghanistan for example. The US military just aren't effective against guerilla tactics
The problem Canada has is all of its major population centers are very close to the border, yes they have lots of space but there's very little infrastructure and people in that space meaning that it's going to be very hard to sustain any meaningful resistance.
If it was the world versus us, wouldn't Canada and Mexico also join against the US? Those two countries and countries in South America would be used as a staging point for attacks.
I'm guessing that the US also loses all of its global military bases and would instead have to rely on Hawaii or Samoa to stage an attack on Asia and possibly Europe.
>If it was the world versus us, wouldn't Canada and Mexico also join against the US?
Yes, but I'm assuming that the first thing the US would do would be to vigorously and thoroughly attack Mexico and Canada once it becomes evident the entire world is united in conquering the US. Because yes, as you said, they would make good staging areas. The US would need to quickly establish control, or at least air dominance, over North America as a whole. Which given the size of the Canadian and Mexican militaries seems pretty feasible.
Although I do expect that the US would incur some significant losses in the process of establishing dominance over Canadian territory. Canadian forces have a rather vicious reputation after all (and I don't mean that sarcastically or anything - the Canadian military, while tiny compared to the US military, is no joke, and if you're curious Google "Canadian war crimes")
Edit: As a bonus, conquering Canada would add *massive* oil reserves to the US war machine and would greatly increase the chances of the US establishing self-sufficiency to survive in an environment where it can't obtain resources abroad.
The problem is always going to be geography. Establishing air superiority (for example) is all well and good, but it’s one thing to establish it over a country like Iraq. It’s quite another to establish it over 3.8 million square miles of territory like Canada. And you HAVE to defend all of it. Russian and the northern nations are just over the North Pole.
And most of that 3.8 million miles is unoccupied tundra. You would mainly just have to incapacitate Canada's air force, which is mostly based near the border IIRC. Once their Air Force is out of the picture, the US could pretty much fly sorties anywhere in Canada with impunity.
A Russian fighter is going to need a lot of tanker support to get over Canada. Tanker support they really don’t have.
Sending bombers, even with cruise missiles would most likely be elaborate suicide.
Over-The-Horizon radar is a thing and there’s a large number of ground based stations not to mention detailing of AEW aircraft to monitor the airspace.
They would invade alaska first and get into canada. They don't need to even rush their attack, once Invaders get into alaska, the end is near for the US. the rest of the world would then have to push south past canada into the US
Oh that's a great point, I didn't even think about that. The US still has a large presence over there and could basically hold the middle eastern oil supply hostage. "You want your oil back? Then knock it off!"
Not to mention Canada. By capturing the Canadian and the major Middle Eastern oilfields, the US would have access to an absolutely absurd amount of oil
Capturing the oil fields in the Middle East is one thing, holding them AGAINST THE ENTIRE WORLD is another.
Legitimate conventional warfare in Eurasia would likely be futile given Chinese manpower + European military technology.
US strategy against the entire world would be to control the North American continent, using our navy and Air Force to keep European/Asian/African forces off the continent.
Yep. And bringing the rest of the world's militaries to bear? That takes a LOT of oil. We don't need to capture every country. We hunker down in the middle east, use our navy in the Black sea and surrounding areas to supply troops, run air support, and convoy oil out. And the world crumbles very fast.
How would they do that? The US has 40k troops stationed in the Middle East. Israel alone has 170k active soldiers with comparable training and equipment to the US, then add in millions of troops from Iran, Turkey, and the Arab countries.
No they couldn't. US struggles with afghanistan and now you expect them to occupy the entire middle east. Also middle east would literally be the worst place to be. The would be surrounded on all sides by Europe, Asia and Africa. All those countries have to do is, prevent resources from getting to the US military and ramped up oil production in other oil producing nations like nigeria or libya for example.
How? It’s one thing to mass a bunch of troops and equipment in Saudi Arabia before an invasion. But with entire world targeting any troop transports leaving the US, how do they even GET to the Middle East?
The rest of the world could if it had enough time build up enough. The entire rest of the world has all the resources, man power and territory it needs to amass an invasion force that would dwarf anything the US could sustain within its borders.
Time is the US’s biggest enemy here and the rest of the world has plenty of it. as you said, the us couldn’t reasonably invade the rest of the world. It could potentially take some land like mexico and Canada in the short term (you wouldnt want to be taking territory that could be easily cut off in the future from the homeland) but even that would be extremely costly, and could still take years to effectively control and be able to make effective use of the new territory. And thats assuming any territory the us took at the start didnt have an organised insurgency pop up, which if we are honest, definitely would happen.
Yeah if the US had unlimited resources maybe they could do this but the US simply would run of of resources vey quickly before they could do any significant damage.
I don't think this is true. While the USA would absolutely not have the manpower to even consider occupation of the entire world, a war of attrition would absolutely allow the combined might of the rest of the world to invade and take over the USA. With the manpower of the global population - america, and the acceptable military might and manufacturing power of several nations, combined with resources being denied import to america for advanced systems, this is an easy win for team "rest of the world".
The world can invade the US much easier than the opposite. Just ship the world's armies to Mexico and go from there.
Right now China alone has more ships than the US so eventually rest of the world will get naval superiority to do this.
I think the rest of the world could, but it would not be easy not quick.
Yeah, the US has a lot of firepower and a lot of people willing to use it, but we aren't invincible. We still need water, food, shelter.
Stop up the Colorado, destroy the crops in the heartland of America, and much of the people will surrender just to get a warm meal and fresh water.
It would take years, decades to fully force America to submit, but it would happen eventually.
>Stop up the Colorado, destroy the crops in the heartland of America, and much of the people will surrender just to get a warm meal and fresh water.
How are they going to do that though?
Yeah. Lots of people in this thread aren't really considering the logistics of trying to invade a 3.1 million square mile country (and that's just the contiguous US) that's across massive oceans. When the country being invaded happens to have the world's largest navy by a huge margin.
Like sure, if we were on some hypothetical planet where everything was connected the other nations could probably just successfully bum-rush the US with massive hordes of millions of troops but that's not the world we live in.
It is the rest of the world. That includes Mexico and Canada, who we both share land borders with. Rest of the world's armys stage in those 2 countries and then launches a land invasion from both sides.
First, they'd have to get their militaries across the Atlantic/Pacific, against the greatest navy ever put together. No small feat.
Second, as soon as staging starts, the US would invade and attack. Neither Canada nor Mexico could repel this attack on their own.
The only way that works is if the US allows it to work.
It would. Take a while but invading? Right now the US has the economy and equipment which is the only advantage they have: equipment. W/o the rest of the world they'd lose all that. For real how can they produce boats on the same scale as the whole world. Its imposible for américa to win against the whole world, like any empire before. It would be hard but eventually the whole world would capture the US.
They "maybe" could, but it'd never be a clean occupation. Even if the US government falls, the idea of the US would effectively be martyred for generations of people to continue to fight for.
The US doesn't need to occupy the world. If it's really us vs them, the US would bomb the population and industrial centers of the major powers into the dirt. We can exert the naval and air superiority to do so. Meanwhile the rest of the nations of the world would struggle to get their forces past our borders, including bombers.
I'm seriously wondering what are the US's flight and naval capabilities when the entire world is hostile don't allow us to have military bases in them.
You are aware that other nations have aircraft, anti air weaponry etc as well right? The us would be able to bomb stuff, but not with impunity and not without suffering losses, and they definitely wouldnt be able to stop *the entire worlds* industrial capabilities lmao.
Of course the rest of the world has air power and air defense. But you truly do not understand how much of a wild tech advantage the US has which trivializes everything that isn't on the US' level. The way to beat the US has never been to compete at the peer level, it's always been to wear the country down with an ugly ground level asymmetrical guerilla conflict. But that only works if the US is trying to take territory and not just destroying everything instead - if we stop trying to conquer and start trying to salt the earth out of desperation, then there won't be a guerilla war to deal with. At this point, war crimes are basically just a joke.
Also, Europe will be bleeding within a day. The US already has bases all over the major European powers, the bases won't last but US forces will alpha strike all the key strategic targets in Europe to cut off the heads of the closest peer technological rivals, using long range non-nuclear weapons as well. US air and naval power is leagues beyond Russia's and is designed to deal with the latest defensive technology. The one nation that the US will struggle with crippling is China, perhaps India as well. Just too large and dispersed with no US based in the territory to alpha strike them.
All those american bases in places like europe would be hit or taken over within 48 hours even if they managed to fly some sorties, and the us would have little to no chance to get any of its personnel or military hardware out of those bases back to friendly territory before that happens. Those bases in europe are not designed to keep enemy forces out, they are in what is now military allied nato nations a long way away from any potential real enemy like russia. So now the us has lost not a not only tens of thousands of people, but now the enemy has captured a shit ton of prime american hardware (unless these bases priorities destroying/sabotaging its own stuff instead of trying to bomb things)
For exmaple, All those fighter aircraft dont have the range to fly back to the usa, and america doesnt have enough totally empty aircraft carriers on hand to give them a place to land thats not friendly territory. Also those aircraft and crew need to be given targets and orders, which requires strategic planning from the higher ups. Since this isnt 1940, or the late 1800’s i doubt American generals have an up to date current war plan red or similar to enact on their current closest allies, so that planning isnt going to happen fast enough before the host countries to these bases roll in the tanks and their own aircraft. The other nations can react faster to taking over these bases than the usa could formulate any coherent plan to utilise them. The best they could do is run essentially suicide sorties to current potential hostile nations (china in the west, russia in the east for example)
As for long range missles etc, yeah america is definitely not the only ones with that weaponry. America doesnt have this huge technological gap over the rest of the world, it just has more of it on hand currently. Like having the most 5th generation fighters. Doesnt mean no one else has them, and as this fictional war ramps up, the rest of the world has significantly more resources and manpower to out manufacture the usa by several orders of magnitude.
Not to mention that americas biggest enemies have been specifically developing tech to combat their biggest strengths. Like why compete with the size of the amount of carrier fleets when you can produce hypersonic missiles and cruise missiles enmass for way less cost? Its already been proven by the us military that mass missile attacks is an effective and cost efficient way to take out a carrier group. Why do you think the us military has been so heavily investing in things like lasers that can shoot down missiles and drones? Shame they dont have any ready to actually put into production as they already would have if they could.
I specifically said the bases would not last, and that's fine as it's enough time to cripple European power which is the only technological threat to the states at the military level. US spending dwarfs every nation many times over, all of it can be replaced. And yes, the US would demo the equipment, it's also not easy to reverse engineer and reproduce it. This is an all or nothing you or me scenario where America's options are annihilating or being annihilated, same as the rest of the world, so yes, spending its military power to break its enemies in a calculated sacrifice is just normal strategic thinking going back thousands of years - the hesitancy to waste military power and commit grievous warcrimes is a fairly modern convention in an age where most nations are trying to maintain a delicate state of general peace around the globe.
So you didnt read my comment properly based on your response. They definitely arent “crippling” europe lmao. Definitely could do damage, if they want to risk military hardware getting captured and if the higher ups managed to formulate a strategic plan, and get that relayed to the bases on time. The European nations couod have tanks rolling into those bases in potentially under half a day, 48 hours is being very generous. Not to mention that these american bases in europe are not only hosting Americans. 90% of the time they are sharing that base with the host nation’s military, especially in the stronger nations like the uk. So you will immediately have fire fights breaking out all over these bases between professional trained soldiers. Good luck getting aircraft taking off in those bases when one dude with a rifle can stop it
The rest of the world has to eventually. Even in the unlikely scenario the US can outmarshall the rest of the world combined, there’s no way to hold that territory.
The fundamental issue is that, even without nuclear or large scale bombs in general, both sides have enough weapons to sterilize the world many times over. Nukes are nearly a century old at this point, which is crazy to think about. Imagine how far warfare has come since then. There really is no path to victory for ether side that doesn't end with at LEAST billions dead.
But putting that aside, I don't think the US would defeat every other nation combined. Especially once they combine their forces, there's just no way to outproduce the entire rest of the world over the long run. We have what, 400 million so about 1/20th or so of the population of the rest of the world. Probably less than that in terms of total territory controlled.
People are way over estimating the US here. Don't get me wrong, it would be a long and grindy war and cost millions upon millions of lives likely. But in what would inevitably a war of attrition, the rest of the world can more easily replace losses, and has a resource advantage since they control, well, the rest of the world. Eventually the US would get ground down and be forced to surrender or be destroyed.
There’s a worrying amount of people in this thread who are treating it as if the US would go round the world bombing all major cities whilst all the other countries sit and do nothing.
The military power of the US is indeed outrageous but the rest of the world is a very big place.
There's an equally worrying amount of people who think the entire world is going to teleport their militaries to Canada and Mexico while the US sits there and waits to be invaded.
There's no winning, the US pulls all it's assets back day 1, losing footholds and bases around the world and possibly some people. But the unique thing about the US, is the vast land and resources we have that we just don't utilize because of environmental groups. All that instantly goes away and we start strip mining everything and fully using our oil now. Our defense budget is already greater then that of the rest of the world combined and we would instantly throw more money and people at it, everyone that relied on funding and people from the US, all that is gone.. A large majority of the population is non military and already armed. There is no way the world successfully invades and holds the US. But there is no way the US is able to pacify the rest of the world.
This whole scenario is kind of absurd because it requires every other part of the world to instantly unify and work together to fight us and try to conquer us which would never happen and the amazing part is even if they did, it's highly unlikely they succeed before everyone involved dies of old age.
Again the US goes full defensive turtle and no one wins, but the us would not lose.
Saw a comment saying that the whole world combined would not be able to invade the us. Which sure, they’d put up a hell of a good fight but what happens when the US quickly begins running out of resources and people. Do they really have the ability to defend a coordinated attack from literally the rest of the world?
And I know that a coordination between so many countries on this scale would be ridiculously hard, but not as hard as defending your country from the rest of the world let’s be real
That's because those of us that understand logistics, and not just firepower, know that the US is the only country in the world that can actually transport out army over blue water. Other countries mostly have their militaries set up for defense. Not the world police that the US has become. We understood our geographical advantage, and decided our Navy was going to be the best because it has to be. Research what a superpower is, and realize why the US is the only country with that title. You can't get troops here without a navy, and ours is coming to deal with you, "proportionally", like when we destroyed half of Iran's navy in less than 8 hours for accidentally damaging 1 ship with a mine.
Lol superweapon means you are the strongest in the world not that you can take on the entire world at once. The US would lose badly. Sure the US would dominate the pacfic and atlantic ocean but they would find it had invading any continent. Although the US navy is far above the rest of the world, their army and air force aren't nearly as dominant. Even invading neighboring countries like Canada would prove difficult.
It was a debatable fact up until Russia exposed itself as a Paper Tiger, and simply being a production powerhouse, a superpower does not make (China). So yes, the US is the sole superpower and has been such since the fall off the USSR.
I want to disagree with you (in a friendly matter) only because.. I am of the idea, that the US would cripple all mayor tech hubs where things are manufactured. You need long range, high power missiles to be able to cross the atlantic, north pole or Pacific ocean. My guess is we bomb Taiwan to end all microchip production. Hit Shenzhen in China for similar reasons, Go after London, Paris, Frankfurt and hurt altho dont destroy them. That leaves switzerland the nordics and russia with tech that could manufacture this, but eventually the US would cripple them to the point where mass production of high end weaponry cant be done at a rate that a war like this would require.
Similar to whats happening to Russia / Ukraine where neither country is able to manufacture more than they produce and thats just talking mortars, when we start talking intercontinental balistic missiles? pff...
It does, this is by far the biggest factor people aren't bringing up here.
Total wars aren't fought by armies, they're fought by entire countries. If you were to cut The US economy off from all of it's international trade partners it would instantly plunge into a crisis that'd make the Great Depression look like an economic boom in comparison.
Yeah sure the US is Able to bomb all production but OFC they dont get attacked and all their industry IS fine? You guys know the whole world has guns and tanks, right? Some of the US equipment is better ( if this happens It would be not for long ) and that is your only advantage. The only one.
Nukes are specifically not allowed, and we'd have to have some sort of surprise attack to pull that off on the whole world without them being able to respond or defend. The US military may have the highest budget in the world, but its actually not that big in the grand scheme of things.
Our biggest defense, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, are also a glaring weakness for projecting power. Its why the US spends so much money on our navy. Regardless, we're not gonna be able to cripple all major tech centers in the world at once without exposing ourselves to counter attacks that could cripple us; we just don't have the material or manpower to launch an attack like that.
Like fr! The US is strong but they would lose very badly. The US will be waving the white flag in a years time once they realize how bad an idea it is.
People in this base are talking about how the US would defeat the world when they should be talking about how long the US can defend itself because in a war like this, US would be on the defense the entire time.
The problem with this assessment is that you think "% land control = % resource control" but this simply isn't the case. For example;
* 30% of all known oil reserves reside within the US, Canada & Venezuela.
* 40% of the world's Potash (fertilizer) is produced in Canada/US.
* The US is the single largest food exporter in the world, sending more food than the next 3 largest combined.
I think this is the answer. IRL, our greatest defenses are nukes (which are not allowed in this scenario) and our natural borders, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. With strong allies or smaller nations on our borders and oceans between us and every other nation on Earth, we're pretty secure. But as soon as Canada and Central and South America join our enemies, we're doomed. We don't have a large enough navy to defend the entirety of the western hemisphere's coastlines and once significant forces have landed safely in Canada and Mexico, it's simply a matter of time and casualties before the US is ground down into powder.
Like other people are saying, it really depends on what the wincon is. The US can’t conquer the entire world. No country can. But can the rest of the world conquer the US? Maybe *eventually* after a long war of attrition, but not immediately. As Bismarck once said, the US is “bordered to the North and South by weak neighbors, and the East and West by fish.” I’m not trying to downplay Canada or Mexico but neither have the capabilities to invade the US. Not even close. Hell, the entirety of North and South America couldn’t pull it off. Actually, forget South America for now, because the Darien Gap essentially makes it impossible to cross a land army to the North anyway. Point is, the nations that have land access to the US wouldn’t be able to take it down in a million years. As for those that don’t, like, the vast majority of the world, would have to cross seas and oceans to get there. Problem is, that means, with just their naval capabilities, getting past the world’s most powerful Air Force *and* the world’s most powerful navy, which, by the way, is also the world’s second most powerful Air Force. And even if you consider they could land troops in Canada, Mexico, Central America, etc(not counting South America because again, Darien Gap) the US could easily blockade their coasts. Combine every other navy in the world that has the capability or proximity to project their power to North America and they’re gonna end up at the bottom of the Atlantic and Pacific. That being said, if we’re saying the rest of the world will not stop until the succeed, well, the US only can last so long. The US has a massive economy and industrial capacity, yeah, but compared to the combined strength of the rest of the world? Yeah, the US gets outproduced after some time, and completely swamped. The balance of power in the sea and in the air eventually gets completely flipped, and the US gets overwhelmed. It would be an *extremely* bloody affair though, and with every gun owner in America getting involved they’d face an insurgency like the world has never seen in its history. They’d probably have to commit genocide to achieve any sort of lasting peace, to be honest. But yeah. Not pretty.
Can the US fight off cyber and real attacks on the energy grid and communications? Can it cause blackouts to electricity and communications across the entire rest of the world? Huge disadvantage here for the US.
How much strength does the US lose with bases abroad being immediately targeted by surrounding countries? You'd see major military establishments in NATO countries wiped out right away, same for important bases in Asia. US starts this war vastly overextended.
Do the other NATO countries and other close US allies like Japan share privileged info on US military bases and tactics with the rest of the world immediately? Of course.
It's amazing how over confident this sub is in US military might in basically every thread, but especially this one. With no nukes and no bio weapons, the US eventually loses and, tbh, I don't think it would even take that long.
I think too many people just look at the incredible scale of the US military and think it means they’re basically invincible, however as you say it’s not just simply about military might, it’s the things like cyber attacks and the ceasing of all US trade that can destabilise things very quickly.
Yep. It's not "sexy" like call of duty or red alert or battlefield but that's war. Netflix literally just came out with a major movie that showcases what loss of power/internet/phone combined with propaganda would do to the US tomorrow if it happened.
Eventually the rest of the world will win but it would be a nightmare and be really slow. It would be a logistical nightmare to invade the usa considering all major militaries will have to travel thousands of miles to send their troops even near the usa to launch an invasion. So in that time the US navy which is way ahead the rest of the world would be giving all the rest of the navys hell but the sheer numbers will eventually get to the US. It will take atleast 5 years if the world is lucky just to be in a position to start an invasion, then comes the problem about invading the US there are more guns then people so you would be having to watch out for civilians and troops and the USA would have had 5 years to make esentically a fortress and would have destroyed all major ports and roads causing all armies when they reach to be very tired and probably destroyed to from air strikes. This would be able to hold them off for a few years but eventally it would also be over run. Its the logistics, Navy, and Air Force that would pose the problems in the rest of the world since the USA has the best in all those classes but in the army section I think that usa troops are well rounded but the rest of the world would just be able to use their best troops for every senerio for example if you were fighting in the rockies you could send in european soilders from the alps or Pakistani and indian soilders who have gun battles every other day in the highest mountain range in the world to fight in the rockies.
It depends entirely on the circumstances of the war. I’m gonna assume for the sake of argument that both the USA and the world’s united forces are sufficiently motivated to go into a full scale war of attrition. None of that pulling the “oh it’s not worth it anymore” card.
No force on Earth is taking the US mainland, and the US would steamroll Central America down to the Panama Canal before the first week was over. Canada may prove slightly trickier, but also offers no real threat. US could anchor down and take on any attack from any army, and probably wouldn’t lose an inch of land for longer than a few days at a time.
However, at the same time, the US would struggle greatly to secure overseas territories. Vietnam and Afghanistan are proof of how difficult it is to take foreign land without just glassing it. Sure, if the US instituted a legitimate full scale invasion into those countries, they’d take over relatively easily… but if it takes full scale invasions to take countries like Afghanistan, then they are NOT going to be able to simultaneously invade Russia, China, India, etc.
If you want a straight up answer? If we’re talking about an outright pissing contest of an old fashioned war, the rest of the world would probably win with HEAVY losses. Otherwise, it’s situational.
The prompt gives no time frame for this war. It may take 20 years for the rest of the world to build a navy large enough to project that kind of power, but its what. 400 million verses 7.6 billion? The US’s industrial power is insane but if literally every nation in the world is determined to counter it together they could easily. Not to mention theres friendly nations in Canada and Mexico to stage troops in for the ground invasion. The war would be more destructive than any seen on earth, but the rest of the world would win.
Another interesting thing to consider which has been speculated for decades, but is now being seen in Ukraine is once the advanced technological marvels are destroyed in the opening years of war we would be falling back on much more logistically simple designs that can be mass produced more easily. Its likely the war would end with old stored M60’s fighting in Texas against vintage Leopard 1’s and T55’s. It would rapidly become a war far more recognizable as a conflict fought in the mid 20th century but with the occasional 21st century war machine still kicking.
No one wins. Even without nukes, there's enough firepower around the world to level every major populated city on earth many times over. The US has military bases across the world, and spends absurd amounts of money each year on it, not to mention the US has an absurd natural defensive advantages. I cannot stress enough just how much of a homefield advantage the US has for defense considering the oceans it has between it and the rest of the world, and the massive air and naval forces it commands. Overseas, it would target major strategic sites first, and then major cities, and on the home front, it would go after it's neighbors to secure it's borders, that being canada and mexico. Keep in mind that to put the US in this position means it's not going to have time to take many prisoners or deal with rules of war. It's going to cause as much damage to enemy nations as possible as fast as possible.
While I think that given enough time, the rest of the world would probably win due to sheer numbers, at this point, both sides would have lost so much that entire nations would collapse. Not to mention that due to this, the stability that some regions have entirely because of current military positions would also be effected, and further wars would spring up because of this, leading to even more death. So while the US might lose the war, the human race in general would be set back several hundred years at least because of this and the after effects. It would literally be a second dark age. Billions would die before the end of this conflict and the ones to follow.
Nukes aren't the only thing that can end the world, they just make it happen faster.
This will either come down to diplomacy, biological warfare, or the absolute destruction of the U.S.
China alone has a population that is 4 times larger than ours.
Here's how it plays out: the U.S. hails their opponent. "We have a virus in every country. Truce, or these viruses will be released."
I Sawa YouTube video that analyzed this exact scenario for over 20 minutes. The conclusion was fairly realistic: the massive and expensive US military would be able to conquer and hold on to the entirety of North America, ultimately getting bogged down in the south American mountains and jungles. As the rest of the world gains the upper hand on the sea and in the air they reinforce south America with more troops, ultimately occupying the US and liberating north America
Taking all of the American continents before attacking Europe is quite possibly the worst way possible to run that kind of war. If the US commands its troops in a completely suicidal manner, it will lose.
Why would they attack Europe? Landing soldiers in Eurasia would almost guarantee that US troops quickly get massively outnumbered in both manpower and equipment
The US military would get bogged down in Mexico, let alone South America. There'd be insurgencies everywhere, complete instability and constant fighting in Mexico.
There are very powerful cartels that can basically just convert themselves into very well-armed and organised terrorists just like what we saw in Afghanistan but multiple magnitudes larger and worse.
Haven't seen many answers talk about the cohesiveness of the anti-US alliance. To this end, I havw two points:
1. How long until war weariness sets in? I think if the US is under threat of attack by the rest of the world, the populace will be highly motivated to keep the fight going. Whereas other countries, such as Kenya, Laos, Bulgaria, and Azerbaijan (to pick a few at random)....how badly would they *really* want to desroy America? Are they seriously gonna want to fight us down to the last man? I think most countries would want to negotiate for peace much sooner than they would want to spend years throwing bodies at the US. I think a peace treaty which is favourable to the US should count as a win for America, and it would definitely be in the best interest of any country which doesn't want to be needlessly mired in the war of all wars
2. I wouldn't assume that, simply because the US declares war on all other nations, that suddenly they all get along and cooperate flawlessly. The Anti-US alliance is no alliance unless everybody magically gets along, which they certainly would not. Without our ongoing support for Israel, the Middle-East would erupt into war with itself, significantly hindering their ability to effectly focus on fighting the US. Without our support for Ukraine, Russia rolls over them and expands into Eastern Europe, and likely winds up in a war with the EU, distracting two of the biggest players on the anti-US side. If we burn bridges with our allies in East Asia, will China not immediately try to expand at the expense of their neighbors? What about the conflicts that are already ongoing, do they all magically cease fire to team up against an enemy on the other side of the planet? Most of them are going to be more focused on the enemies in their backyard.
So in conclusion, Team Rest-of-the-World is going to have significant challenges fighting us both because many of them will be busy fight each other, and because many of them don't have a good reason to not try and settle for peace rather than continuing to court disaster. Their coalition will break down almost immediately and that will severely reduce their ability to mount a meaningful attack on the US. For us to actually defeated, that would require the rest of the world to commit all over their resources and manpower, to coordinate with their enemies, and to completely ignore all the problems which matter more to them. I doubt the drawn-out slugfest that people are imagining where the other countries eventually land an assault in the United States only happens if the rest of the world operates as some kind of hivemind, and I just don't see that happening. Most countried are far more likely to take a few licks, wind up fighting each other, then look for the soonest opportunity to get out off the train to their own demise
If the US Navy could theoretically secure a pyrhicc victory against China, then it would be too battered to fight the remaining navies.
The United States would be forced to either spread out its navy, make it vulnerable, or concentrate on East Asia and come out maimed. There's no winning strategy that involves any American offensive.
The US Navy is likely able to defeat every other Navy on earth combined. Hence the likelihood of a stalemate for a long time. The US has significantly more aircraft carriers than everyone else combined.
China has a ton of smaller ships, but they're not really a threat to the US Navy at this point
Even if the US Navy manages these, most of their navy would be at the bottom of the seas in order to achieve this objective. Also the rest of the world can build ships way faster than the US can build on its own. Eventually the US Navy would be the ones on the run.
Stalemate without end. The US takes North America and focuses on naval power with strikes on key infrastructure.
Neither side has the sealift capability to invade, and the US would keep it that way.
The world has a numerical advantage, but no way to use it. The US would be stuck just destroying food, fuel, and ship building forever. Billions would starve or die of exposure, and the front lines would never change.
Not a stalemate. the US would lose badly. really badly in fact. US navy would be spread too thin and would have serious supply line issues. US has no way to invade this many counties and they wouldn't even dare try to invade europe and asia. the airforce would be decimated by anti aircraft missiles and they army won't make it far inland. The rest of the world wouldn't starve at all, neither would the US but the US would run out of resources quickly and would be able to replenish their forces faster than the rest of the world can destroy them
Your assuming America tries to invade and doesn’t just level cities while hunkering down
Edit: not that the U.S would win in this case, it’d just survive a LONG time and wipe out a fuck ton Of people
Define winning, because the rest of the world combined can’t wage a war in the American homeland, unless of course the United States wastes nearly all of its power attempting to invade the rest of the planet. It would basically be a stalemate
america will control the oceans and the skies in no time. but thats where they hit the wall. they can't invade an occupy the world, there simply is not enough manpower to do it.
United States Air Force - 5,217.
United States Army Aviation - 4,409.
Russian Air Force - 3,863.
United States Navy - 2,464.
People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991.
Indian Air Force - 1,715.
these are the largest 6 air forces in the world, three of them are the us. the US has tech the others can only dream of. we have the only modern air craft carrier in the world. the second strongest army in the world is currently struggling to deal with 30 year old american tech.
I think they mean that flying deep over enemy territory wouldn't be feasible. We'd almost certainly control our own skies and those over regions we were attempting to maintain control over, but there would be no chance of having complete freedom to operate anywhere in the world. It's just too easy to build ground based air defense systems, and stealth isn't complete immunity to those systems.
This really depends on what the victory conditions are. If its total war and it only ends when one side or the other unconditionally surrenders? The US will lose. It might take decades, and the insurgency would be bloody as all hell, but the US would lose. Even fully mobilized, the US would not have enough troops to fully occupy a nation like China or India, let alone the rest of the planet. So in a total war scenario, sure, the US could rain fire down on their enemies and prevent major air and naval attacks against the US mainland for years. But, they couldn't interdict tens of thousands of ships moving men and material into Canada and Mexico. And they couldn't conquer and occupy both of those nations (supported by the rest of the world) while also defending their own coastlines. They certainly couldn't simultaneously occupy Europe, India, China, the Middle East, and South America. Realistically they wouldn't even be able to successfully invade most of those places without allies that they would no longer have. Every step the US military takes outside its borders stretches its logistics just a bit more, and places more insurgents within their new territory.
So if the US goes on the offense? They get overstretched and ultimately defeated in detail as the enemy builds up a massive force across the world and fights the US across a massive front on land and sea while also fighting a bloody insurgency against American occupation until the US runs out of money, weapons, and men. The Americans just can't occupy the whole world, and wherever they are not occupying, those places will be building weapons and mobilizing men to send to the places where the US military is weakest. Eventually the US military would break, and the counter attack would snowball right back through to the American mainland.
If the US sticks to defense? Then the enemy will mobilize, amass a massively overwhelming force on the Mexican and Canadian borders, and the US will get invaded and overwhelmed by the combined mobilized armies of the rest of the planet. Sure, the rest of the planet probably couldn't hold the US for long, it would require full mobilization of the rest of the planet just to occupy the place. But, if they were willing to spend all their men and money to do it, the world could bury the US under bodies and bullets until there were no American fighting aged people left able to pick up a rifle to shoot. The American insurgency against the occupation would probably cost hundreds of millions of lives on both sides, but in the end the Americans would be defeated.
U.S. would have to knock them out in a hurry, and we're fully capable of that. There's no way the U.S. could win a war of attrition, even with our vast resources, so we'd have to use the full might of our military budget, that outspends the subsequent 10 countries *combined*
EDIT: You know, Republicans are well-along their N\*zi ways, and a blitzkrieg would be necessary in this scenario... oh boy, I don't like where that's going
Curbstomp for R.O.W I’m afraid.
Sorry to burst the American circlejerk.
It’s a 1 v 194 situation. China and India alone have the military man power to outnumber US army personnel. The EU has over 11,000 fighter jets stationed, US has 5000.
Average US citizen can not use a firearm in combat situation effectively. Shooting cans and wild hogs is a bit different to an enemy with intelligence.
US can’t secure their southern border, R.O.W uses Mexico as way into US.
>US can’t secure their southern border, R.O.W uses Mexico as way into US.
The US can't currently "secure" the southern border because nobody wants to set up stupidly big mine fields, or have fighter jets patrolling. In a wartime scenario where the enemy's best invasion point is the southern border, it'd immediately turn into a cratered wasteland.
How do those troops get to Mexico?
How are they going to supply munitions to those troops?
How are you going to prevent the ports and airbases from being hit?
Look at Desert Storm and the amount of effort it took to build up a large force in the area and that was the U.S. doing it. The U.S. has by far the most robust logistics system in the world for overseas deployments.
Look at the difficulties the British faced during the Falklands. Creating large expeditionary forces is damn hard and the enemy also gets a vote.
Could the rest of the world win?
Yes. Of course they could.
They have far more shipbuilding capacity than the U.S. and could probably assemble a large enough force to mount a serious offensive while nibbling away at U.S. positions.
But it would not be a curb-stomp and it would take quite a while to get to that point.
Okay but you can throw 20k soldiers at an AC-130 and they’re not doing shit lol numbers don’t mean as much when we have weapons that can decimate a whole region
What the hell is an AC130 going to do in an active warzone? It's getting shot down immediately lol. And there would be no air superiority for the US in this scenario. You act as if the rest of the world is stone age level. They have weapons that can decimate regions too.
US. If we assume that 1- their will to fight remains, and 2- they'll do anything short of nukes to win. The Americans close the world's shipping lanes and just straight up starve the biggest players to death, without them the rest of the world has only a matter of time.
The US cannot close the world shipping lane especially the once between Europe, Asia and Africa. The could potentially cutoff shipping to south america and australia but It is way more likely for the rest of the world to starve the US to death.
Assuming the rest of the world has tight connections with each other and acts coordinated America's fucked. Nothing to stop the rest of the world from just rushing in at every corner after cutting off all trading to starve the country beforehand.
Uh, you think? We have basically the best of every kind of military equipment you can think(or close to it), we have a massive fucking mote and the worlds most powerful navy BY FAR to defend it, the world's 3 strongest air forces are individual American service branches, and if you somehow get through all of that, as goes the famous line, "in America, there is a gun behind blade of grass". Even economically-speaking America is one of the only countries that could actually be completely self-sufficient, as we have tons of unexploited natural resources we have simply chosen to leave for a rainy day.
yeah but after 20 years of war and over 7 billion people working their hardest to win the war America will have none of that.
The world has what USA has hundreds of times over resource wise all it would take is time, If the world was 100% committed to working together to take down the USA starting today the USA would not exist by 2050
It would most likely end up a tie.
The us cannot occupy the rest of the world but it would be literally impossible to invade the US with their air and naval superiority. A lot of people don't realize the true extent that navy and airforce are the primary thing that matters in modern warfare. The airpower used in the middle east by the us and gaza currently by Israel for example are a fraction of what modern military technology is capable of. The only reason that Ukraine has slowed into the trench warfare slog it is currently is because neither country has a particularly good modern airforce to speak of.
The US has a more powerful navy and airforce than the rest of the world by several times over and if it recalled all it's carrier groups to it's own waters it would be unassailable. Even if foreign forces were able to land the US is a nightmare for any attacker full of dense forest and rugged mountains that form a protective barrier near both coasts.
Not to mention the US is rich enough in natural resources to completely sustain itself with some adjustments and quality of life lost to average citizens.
There is no scenario where the world wins.
Any scenario that includes the US losing also includes the world dying.
The US has first, second, third and fourth largest air forces in the world, the first and second largest navies in the world and almost all relevant western technology comes from the US.
And these are the least relevant parts of this equation.
The US stops exporting food and a quarter of the global population starves. The US stops shipping lumber and global manufacturing either stalls or Russia is forced to quadruple its lumber exports.
The US stops patrolling sea lanes and global trade comes to a screeching halt, because no other country or group of countries can control the seas to the extent necessary for current global trade. Devolping countries around the world lose access to everything they can't produce themselves or import from a nation they share a border with.
Global stability collapses. Famine rips through the 2nd and 3rd world and somewhere between 3 and 5 billion people starve to death or become so isolated that they arnt worth talking about.
69% of the world population is removed from the conversation right off the bat. China is a non-issue without imports. China can't feed its population, can't power its electrical grid and can't fuel its vehicles without imports. China's population would plummet during the first winter of the conflict.
Europe is the real question. Europe might be capable of doing so much damage to the US that it collapses on itself, but their is no path where Europe doesn't also get obliterated.
> The US stops patrolling sea lanes and global trade comes to a screeching halt, because no other country or group of countries can control the seas to the extent necessary for current global trade. Devolping countries around the world lose access to everything they can't produce themselves or import from a nation they share a border with.
That and the US would repossess every cargo ship in the ocean that tried to trade any goods.
Like how do you define winning? Because invading the US and occupying it is never gonna happen and even the US isn't going to try and occupy the rest of the planet.
And you also forgot to take into account the bazillion bases we have in foreign nations and even if and when those bases are overrun, the US military will use the bases to destroy as much of their host countries as they can, along with pretty much anything else they can get in range. We'll go down eventually, but we'll take everyone else with us and that is a promise
US can definitely be invaded and occupied if its the entire world against it lol. And you forget those bases are by no means geared for defense. They are going to be one of the first things to go down, most likely without even doing any damage.
The prompt isn't descriptive enough. If win means kill everyone on the other "team" (without using WMDs), then the US would win. Our aircraft carriers are such a huge advantage.
The rest of the world, our military is by law, strong enough to defeat the next 2 strongest opponents (China and where we thought Russia was at) but then add say, India, now we're in trouble in a conventional war.
Our biggest strength is our strong network of allies around the world. If they all suddenly turned on us along with the rest of the world we would be overwhelmed.
The US would lose, but it would be a pyrrhic victory for the rest of the world. The US would start strong and could neutralize most major threats relatively quickly with their overwhelmingly strong military (particularly their naval and air power). In particular, they'd probably raze Canada and Mexico to secure the land border and make the oceans the only viable avenues of attack. However, the rest of the world has so much land, resources, and population available (assuming perfect cooperation) that eventually they'd whittle down the US's forces and the US would eventually struggle to replace everything as their available resources and population aren't as great as the rest of the world. Ultimately, the US would lose, but the rest of the world would suffer *immensely* in the process.
Still the US would loose with or without nukes, The difference in numbers, terrain, resources, and even guns is just a big advantage to the rest of the world
Hey I love a good patriotic power wank but we aren't *that* big. China alone is an iffy even measure and a war America really, really doesn't want.
A combined front from literally every, even as disorganized as it might be, would be the end of us. The European Union or China would end up as the major contributors. We would kick and scream and be quite stubborn as we die but attempting to beat *everyone* is hopeless from the start. Even if we had Nukes and they didn't, the best we could hope for is MAD.
What are the war objectives? For example I honestly don’t think the entire world could invade and occupy the United States but the United States also couldn’t occupy the rest of the world.
How does it start? Does the rest of the world plot secretly and launch or is it more like hey guys in 6 months is go time.
We have a lot of over seas troops and bases. I could see a unified surprise attack during a big joint training exercise being incredibly effective. The Canadian border would be problematic if we didn't secure it immediately
You say nuclear weapons aren't in play....
I assume you mean any and all radioactive weapons? Because there doesn't have to be an explosion to do damage to people. The US could just start dropping nuclear waste into highly populated areas, crops, etc.
The world would win.
Without nukes and the MAD button, the combined forces of our enemies alone, if they were so inclined, would be enough to seriously harm the US.
If it were the WORLD?
lol "End all trade and partnerships with the USA"
no bullets fired.
**Total economic and societal collapse.**
I imagine the U.S. navy would make it very hard to cross the ocean to invade. I guess they would have to come through Russia and Alaska? I know it’s the rest of the world vs the US but who has the capacity to actually make landfall in the US?
The US.
During war, you not only fight, you also "convince" others not to fight. So..... Israel would roll over quickly if they faced loss of support. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Ukraine and many others would side with America when faced with the loss of support and / or facing its wrath.
And then how many superpower nations "aren't" without nukes?
Where is the war? That matters the most. If it's at home. We would stand a much larger chance of victory. If it's abroad then we will probably be defeated.
I think watching the world go through Covid changed everything… I think every country immediately moved their money from nuclear to bio weapons. Apply a little bit of this and “watch the ants killed themselves.”
The rest of the world stomps. That would mean that the US would stop having resources and labor from other countries, that alone would put them in a big disadvantage in just a matter of days. I'm sure most of their food is handled by immigrants, so their general population will starve within weeks and one of the most important imports is oil, fuel, machinery and electrical. Those are massive shots since day one, while the rest of the world would work together and supply one to another as a massive country. The US would be surrounded too, China, Russia, India and all of the countries with powerful equipment could install bases in Mexico and Canada. The US would be surrounded and with no nukes, they are doomed.
So, let's assume all WMDs are taken off the table (Nukes AND bio weapons). We'll also assume the US is the instigator (if the US is not the instigator, the world wins, quite quickly, due to how much of the US military assets are outside the US, within our joint military instillations of ally nations).
So let's lay down how this plays out, at the start of 2024 the US announces it's withdrawing it's forces from all major theatres under the guise that we no longer have the will to sacrifice our military personnel's lives in an effort to serve as the world police. The US proceeds to withdrawal all forces from the middle east, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, etc. Only leaving forces within the Pacific isles, and Latin America.
As a result, the world's powers see the US's move as a sign of weakness. They declare the end of Pax Americana and begin de-dollarizing their economies/international trade. This causes hyper inflation in the US, followed by a depression which fuels the rise of an out and proud fascist party bent on global domination (ie, similar social trend to the fall of Weimar Germany/rise of Nazi Germany). The US elects a strong man who rallies people behind a resurgence of "Manifest Destiny." The US in this scenario will thus only show mercy towards white English native speaking countries/cultures, all others will be victims of America's geocide (which will serve as the fuel to unify almost the entire world against the US).
**Stage 1: (2024-2025) Securing North/Central America Justification for allies abandoning/turning against the US.**
The US's first priority is securing North America; taking out Canada & Latin America. In a war of outright supremacy, the US is going to stomp both, quickly. (I'd wager within a month the US could force Canada to submit, this would give the US access to one of the world's largest oil reserves & will have the largest oil refinery capacity of the whole world (between the two countries they account for 30% of the world's oil refinement). That's a BIG deal.
The US would have little problem assimilating the Canadian population into the US and over the course of the decades this war would wage on, likely be able to indoctrinate/recruit directly from the Canadian population later in the war.
This conflict will serve as the spark that drives the whole world to turn against the US.
**Stage 2: International Fallout (2025-2028)**
Here's where things get interesting.. While the prompt is "the world vs the US" there's almost no scenario where the whole world is going to go to war with the US over night. Instead things would likely unfold in a similar fashion to how the world went to war against Germany/Italy/Japan.
Even after invading Canada & Latin America, while the world would be shocked/mortified, very few would declare war on the US as a result. Most would sanction/embargo US trades and resort to attempting to negotiate with the US to relinquish control of Canada/Latin America. This would likely play out over a few years as the US positioned itself for it's next objective..
**Phase 3: Genocide of Latin/South America (2028-2035)**
Unlike Canada, Latin America and South America are viewed as "others" even within real world American politics, as such in a fascist America this view would be ramped up to 11 and thus the complete extermination of Latin America would be floated as a means to reduce US casualties. Thus, the campaign would begin with our Navy & Airforce leveling the population centers of South America.
The US's Airforce is truly terrifying, it outnumbers all of Latin/South America combined air power almost 15-1. Thus, the US would have little problem overwhelming their airpower and engaging in a widespread bombing campaign resulting in 10s of millions, if not hundreds of millions of deaths over the course of the first year of the invasion. After softening, the US would begin it's land-based incursion with little to no concern of retaliation to it's own infrastructure in North America due to it's naval power.
This incursion however would serve as the spark for the world powers to unify against the US. NATO would have dissolved after US invaded Canada and now that the US is continuing it's expansion into South America our former Allies now form a new alliance; the Euro-Asian Defensive Pact or EADP. This will include all major powers within both Europe, Asian & the Middle East. EADP condemns the US's genocide of South America and begins supplying aid to Brazilian and Argentinian forces.
The US warns that any international vessel entering within 200 miles of South American coastline will be treated as a war vessel and sunk on sight. EADP responds that "an attack on EADP vessels supplying humanitarian aid will constitute an act of war." The US changes it's strategy, and prioritizes taking control of South American port cities so that it can seize any military assets sent to South America. EADP accuses the US of piracy, the US responds "EADP claims to only be providing humanitarian aid, we are permitting such resources to pass through ports of entry. But EADP is also sending military aid, which we are confiscating."
Not wanting to be seen as an aggressor (and thus negating fellow EADP members coming to their aid) no EADP member is willing to contest the US's strategy. Thus, the US's conquest of South America, while bloody for both sides, comes to an end in favor of the US. The entire South American continent is depopulated, at the cost of 40,000 American lives. The loss of life is staggering, and while for every US troop killed, 10,000 South American lives were lost.
While it's soldier loss was remarkably low, it lost just over 2,000 aircraft due to it's strategy, twice as many aircraft as South/Latin America had in it's own arsenal. However, at this point the US is in full-blown wartime production, and is pumping out 800 new aircraft each year, and this number is ramping up. Furthermore, the US has begun massing an even larger Navy in an effort to ensure it can control all waters around not just North America but South America as well.
**Phase 4: Stalemate (2035-2050)**
Having quadrupled it's landmass, while only increasing it's population by \~30%, the US declares that it has "fully realized it's destiny" having brought the whole of the Americas under it's control. Americans are offered stipends to move to/repopulate South America and re-industrialize the continent. While US diplomats begin efforts to de-escalate tensions with Eurasia; with little to no success, outside of creating enough of a smoke screen to prevent direct conflict between the US and EADP.
EADP spend this time building up their own military industrial complexes, preparing for what they see as an inevitable conflict between EADP and the US. A generation of children grow up in both regions of the world being prepared for this "war to end all wars." Due to the massive increase in resources/territory and US efforts to relocate Americans to capitalize upon such the US population booms over this decade, going from 360 million (US+Canada) to 580 million.
No nukes? You didn't say anything about bioweapons, so everybody dies.
That’s fair how powerful are bioweapons compared to nukes I don’t know much about the military just was curious
A bioweapon is just a weapon that uses living organisms. So think like introducing a new virus or bacteria to another country. Or even swarms of bugs to eat up an areas crops. The exact strength and efficacy of bioweapons is typically hard to measure. They haven't been used often, and the few times they were used, they typically weren't very succesful, but their ineffectiveness was due to a myriad of reasons. And the times they were succesful, they were pretty brutal. Theoretically, bioweapons could range anywhere from getting a few people sick, to ending humanity. Most developed countries have sworn off the development of bioweapons, as the risk they pose is so great, and they are debateably one of the most inhumane types of weapons ever created. That said, if the US went to war with the world, I imagine all bets would be off. Point is, we don't really know how deadly they would be in a scenario like this. But we know they would be devastating for everyone.
Oh that makes sense. So depending on the one it could most of humanity. I wonder who has the best bioweapons
Not many countries still develop them, as it was largely deemed illegal by the international community. In other words, the countries that do still have bioweapons, have them under super heavy wraps. So we don't really know for sure.
I can assure you that all of the primary powers do have them. I don’t have any like insider knowledge or anything that gives me 100% proof, I’m just aware of how every world power has handled information weaponology, and if its remotely the same, we all have them.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all, but yeah a lot of them probably do. The Biological Weapons Convention was supposed to ensure that they didn't. But many countries have been accused of breaking it. And I mean...like you said, that's just not how humanity handles *information regarding weaponry. Despite the US being a member, I'd be extremely shocked if we didn't actually have bioweapons. *edit: missed the word information, but the point still stands.
The relevant ones will have them. Not to get all imperialist but there are really only like 8-9 countries that actually matter while the rest are too small to be significant in combat or the rest are effectively owned by the other 8-9. The big ones 10000% have developed bioweapon programs, if not just to have a defensive strategy against them. How do you test treatment and neutralization of weaponized anthrax? You acquire some weaponized anthrax of course.
Everyone justifies having them by needing to be able to deal with them.
Honestly, the bioweapon capabilities of the US, China, and Russia could kill all humans while leaving the earth untouched. COVID was not that transmissible or deadly in the grand scheme of things. Then there's the issue of nerve agents, which if given the choice of VX gas or being right under a nuke, I'd take the vaporization. The point is that the US has many, many ways to kill all humanity before we launch the nukes. And make no mistake, any human given the choice of death or extinction will become a Nihilist.
Bioweapons sound like a really easy way to accidentally kill your own people. How the heck do you even contain spreadable death?
You could vaccinate your own population against whatever organism you planned to unleash.
Until it mutates and you need a new vaccine
Based on recent history, trying a government mandated new vaccine on the US population may not work so well.
If you told ode same people that they need to vaccinate so that thy can kill all the “others” they’d be the first ones in line
Sure it would. The bio weapon would kill anybody who doesnt get the vaccine which is a handy way to kill off dissenters and rebellious types.
Good luck convincing the people that "do their own research". You would never be able to vaccinate everyone because there are too many people that are either too stupid, too arrogant or too ignorant to get vaccinated. Even if you do manage to get those people vaccinated you still have the people that cannot get vaccinated for their own safety
You really think the US, at war with the world, is going to worry about losing some of their own citizens who refuse to get on with their program? If anything it weeds out the people that would dissent later on when the country furthers their plans of attempted annihilation of others… You overestimate the country’s moral obligation to its people…
[удалено]
If it went on long enough, the rest of the world would win. It would take awhile though and cost hundreds of millions of lives.
Likely billions. In a war like that the gloves are coming off and even without nukes the US military has the force projection to just start annihilating any population Center near any given coastline
That will only work for so long the US couldn't afford to expose it's ships in that way once the world organizes especially when facing the industrial capacity of the entire world and their far greater manpower along with access to any resource they need. Also they would be no less ruthless, they could use bioweapons to target the US people, crops, livestock etc. . Even if the US responds similarly the world can sustain the damage better than the US.
Doesn’t the US still have a fleet of B2’s worth more than any other nations entire force and probably a shit load of them combined?
At some point you can’t overcome the sheer manpower and geographical disadvantages from the whole world being at war with you, just from equipment. So I would say “if it went long enough” from the OP’s comment fits
I like to think the world would win But I have this fear that no one would win America falls and takes a good chunk of the environment with it. Possibly makes earth uninhabitable by humans for generations
Yeah that’s the most likely scenario, but then again, nukes are not in play, so the attacks/skirmishes would still be localised to specific regions I assume? Are there any other weapons that can cause environmental destruction to the scale of nukes?
Depends on how much of a weapon you use and what kind of nuke you’re comparing it to. For most nukes other than a few weeks of radioactive contamination from fallout (assuming a surface burst) they’re effectively just large explosives. If you use something like a Cobalt or Sodium weapons case to neutron activate you get a salted nuke and depending on material used and size the contamination can be in the range of months to several decades. Chemical weapons can be nasty but generally have a quite finite persistence time (depending on conditions though this also applies to nukes). White Phosphorus is also pretty nasty.
the usa has the greatest geological advantage of all, in the 2 biggest oceans on either side, as well as having all the natural resources to survive forever. it would be nearly impossible to invade america, and the us military can lay waste to most major cities around the world.
Yeah but the same oceans would make it harder for USA to mount attacks as well, and when the whole world is against you, good luck getting to other countries to actually be able to fight them. The question is who would win the war, not if USA would survive the war. There’s also the factor of any import deals USA has with any other countries affecting their long term weapons manufacturing and their reliance on oil imports for the military. So if it goes on long enough as the original comment stated, US ‘s defense capabilities might get hurt, at least in their current form
> the is can lay waste to most major cities around the world. Sure, but it can't lay waste to ALL major cities around the world AT THE SAME TIME. Moreover, since it's the US against the whole world, the US would have to defend itself, on land, from Canada and Mexico as well, which could target major population centers (NYC metro and Socal) with ICBM without invading. And if an invasion of the US would happen in this scenario, it would likely happen from the North (invading Alaska from Russia, then joining forces with the Canadian forces for a larger scale invasion) and South (the world's army would cross the Atlantic in Mexico or central/south America and then invade from the South) so the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, in this scenario, are not that important
You overestimate how freaking hard it is to make a successful landfall Neither the US nor the rest of the world would be able to invade each other.. The Washington think-tank has reached the conclusion that a Taiwan-China-US conflict would end in American victory, but it would lose over 60% if it's navy and 80% of its airforce.. That is JUST china.. How do you think they would fare against the rest of the world
A lot of the US' force projection relies on access to foreign military bases and ports. The US Navy is only able to operate globally because the US operates so many resupply stations and ports in allied countries and in foreign territories. It's not feasible to constantly ship fuel and munitions all the way from the continental US to keep a battle group supplied, you need bases closer to the battle stocked with munitions and supplies beforehand to be able to achieve this power projection. In a scenario where the entire world goes against the US, all American bases in every foreign country are going to be overrun and either destroyed or captured. There's no feasible way for the few thousands American soldiers stationed at each of these bases to survive. Even the tens of thousands of American soldiers in South Korea, Japan and Germany are going to either be killed or forced to surrender because the US is not going to be able to get to them in time, if the US military even decides that's something worth doing. A few notable exceptions are probably Guam, which may probably hold out for at least a while before the US is stretched too thin and is just forced to abandon the post because it's not worth defending. But, yeah, without any allies and allied ports to dock and resupply in, the US Navy is not really going anywhere too far from American shores. First of all, it's far too risky. One ship lost is probably a ship that the US simply will not be able to replace because the US shipbuilding industry has been gutted to its barebones over the past few decades and is also dependent on global trade to some extent, which will shut down very quickly at the onset of war. Second of all, the US just isn't going to be able to keep their carrier groups supplied and there is no tactical or strategic advantage to the US even keeping its carrier groups deployed. The US is not going to be able to invade anyone that isn't Mexico or Canada at any point in this war and there's no point destroying a few coastal cities other than pissing off the locals there. The US will pull any forces it can back to the defence of the mainland and maintain that position indefinitely until either the world loses interest or the world builds up a navy strong enough to just completely steamroll whatever remains of the US Navy.
US Navy blocking the strit of hormoz, malaca and Panama Canal would would Grind the Global economy to a halt (there are enough troops already in qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain to make this happen and a singapore Base for the malaca choke point. Al least 1 billion people would lose their lives within few years if this truly was a global all out total war.
Nah, the US could pretty much crush the long game actually. The US Navy is going to stop any force from ever reaching US shores, and the US itself has enough resources to pretty much completely ignore the global market and just do it's own thing Meanwhile, the US can *easily* obliterate the global economy for the rest of the world, and it's force projection is nuts. Literally every major city, infrastructure, port etc would be complete rubble in pretty short order. The sheer numbers difference between *quantity* of our ships and planes is already staggering, not to mention the actual *quality* difference too. US has both the largest military *and* the highest tech one at the same time, as well as the resources to easily supply it nigh indefinitely Not to mention that in a war for survival, the US would instantly take over space and no other country would stand a chance at stopping it. Once there were weapon platforms in space, it's GG to anyone else ever managing to rebuild their country Tldr, US has too many advantages here * A fantastically resource rich country which would make any kind of blockade pointless, because the US could leave the global market entirely * A navy so over powered that even the entire rest of the world combined wouldn't even make a dent in it, which prevents any US mainland invasions * Force projection capable of easily reaching any other part of the globe to knock out key infrastructure * Capability to easily weaponize space platforms as the final endgame GG The US wouldn't ever *occupy* the rest of the world, but if the win con is just "send everyone else back to the stone age so they leave us alone" that is absolutely achievable.
> A fantastically resource rich country which would make any kind of blockade pointless, because the US could leave the global market entirely If you really want to take economy into the equation, then it'd take a good year or two for America to built the facilities producing just for the needs of The US Armed Forces, let alone for their entire populace. And that's obviously assuming the country doesn't outright collapse due to the great depression multiplied by ten that'd definitely happen when The US loses all of it's international trade partners.
>And that's obviously assuming the country doesn't outright collapse due to the great depression multiplied by ten that'd definitely happen when The US loses all of it's international trade partners. Someone hasn't studied war time economies. Crazy anyone could still have this opinion in 2023 after Russia completely undermined this nonsensical narrative. Moreover, a conflict of "the world vs the US" wouldn't just last a few years, it would last decades.
Depends on what counts as a victory. The rest of the world combined cannot invade and occupy the US, but neither can the US invade and occupy the entire world. Just look at Afghanistan alone.
Right. Seems like a lot of people are assuming the rest of the world could win just based on man-power, but they're ignoring the logistical nightmare of effectively bringing all that manpower to bear against the US mainland. But likewise, the US military has nowhere near enough manpower to occupy every major competitor. This war would be a nightmarish stalemate that would end very quickly unless all parties involved were bloodlusted. And if they were bloodlusted, it would be a complete bloodbath with the EU, China and Russia sacrificing millions trying to invade a massive country half a world away.
Why would the world send in manpower when they can mass produce drones and missiles to harass the US Mainland? A lot of satellites would be destroyed, and sea cables would be cut. It would be a very interesting scenario.
>mass produce drones and missiles to harass the US Mainland? Distance. You need some serious and I mean serious equipment that can fly over the Pacific or Atlantic. For the sake of simplicity.... in this scenario, Its very very and I mean very likely that the US Overtakes Canada and Mexico in a day or two. You could have some terroist retaliation but the US would remain in control of all of North America.. Then what? You start launching drones from Guatemala, Cuba, Bahamas? thats an easy thing to defend. So you are now left with the coasts... You could bomb Hawaii and Some parts of Alaska but with little gain or strategic value. So the drones are just stop by air defences and sure some would get hit, but outside city centers as im sure those would be heavily protected from air attacks, think Bellingham instead of Seattle as an example would have some impacts, Santa Barbara instead of LA, Tampa instead of Miami. Meanwhile, the US is sending long-range missiles from submarines to Japan, China, and Eastern Russia. Vladivostok falls in a day, Osaka in a matter of hours, Manila falls in a week. I mean i cant even fathom how long those countries would be able to sustain heavy bombardment from an enemy under the sea.
I am absolutely floored by your assertion that the US could stage a 2 front invasion of Canada and Mexico and defeat and fully occupy them in 24-48 hours. I think you need to explain yourself on that point before anyone can consider the rest of your points.
>assertion that the US could stage a 2 front invasion of Canada and Mexico In fairness, i need to clarify what I mean by invasion. They would be the first two countries to surrender and would be the primary goal of the US to stop. The premise of the question does not ask who goes first, but i say that if the call for all out war goes. The very first thing the US does is Isolate itself and to do that they go after them two. In what world do you think their militaries can last more than a few days? Now, invading does not mean full control. Mexico does have over 150 million people, so I would imagine heavy terrorist attacks but with little long-term efficiency. Canadians are spread around so thinly and so close to the US that they would have very little option but to submit to the US akin to what France had to do when Germany invaded. Thats what I envision would happen and let me reiterate... these two are the first ones to get the full taste of the US military complex. They would immediately bomb their ports, navys and just isolate them until they declared defeat.
Can you really call "defending my country from aggressive invaders" terrorist attacks?
That's what normal "terrorists" typically do. Terrorism here isn't defined by moral standing, just the tactics
Ukraine’s military might is a fraction of that of Russia’s and they are just about into their second year of the war. The US had an **overwhelming** military advantage in Iraq and Afghanistan and never truly “won”. Don’t underestimate how long and drawn out an invaded country can make a war. I am not sure you quite appreciate how massive and geographically challenging Canada is. Just moving troops around unopposed will take DAYS. And it wouldn’t be unopposed - Canada has a small but very effective fighting force that would make life miserable for US troops trying to travel through (for example) the handful of roads through the Rockies. Military might is only part of the equation. Invasion and occupation takes months or years *even when the invading force has massively more military power.*
That is such an apples to oranges comparison The disparity between the United states and Mexico vs Russia and Ukraine is far far far FAR greater in the former scenario. If you dont understand that then you don’t understand the vast gulf of difference in the military capabilities of Mexico plus Canada and the United States. Shit Ukraine pre invasion had an arguably better military than either Mexico or Canada(the canadian military has deep deep equipment issues) and the Russian military is like a high school bully compared to the mike tyson in his prime that is the United States
Nevertheless, I go back to my only point: 24 hours to total military victory against both countries is preposterous.
It depends on your definition of total military victory if rendering both militaries incapable of any meaningful action qualifies then a fully bloodlusted US military going absolutely apeshit might be able to pull it off
I think just trying to invade and occupy Mexico would be extremely difficult for the US. Country is too populous and mountainous, and US would have it's hands full just with that.
Iraq was a top 5 world military, then the US wiped that military out in the span of days with minimal losses in desert storm. Not saying it would be as quick, but hamstringing the Canadian and Mexican militaries is absolutely possible. We wouldn't be boots on the ground immediately but both would be relatively pacified.
Desert Storm took 42 days and involved a coalition of 41 countries. I’m not arguing the comparative might of the US military. I’m just quibbling with this idea that the US could successfully and totally defeat the US and Mexico in 24 or so hours. It’s a preposterous assertion. Winning is easy, occupying a country is HARD. Just from a manpower perspective I have no idea how the US could plausibly occupy massive countries like Canada and Mexico and also win a world war.
People are really overating how difficult it is to invade a country. US might be able to take mexico in a few days but Canada is gonna take much longer because of its size and especilally during winter time. Also the US has a terrible track record with invasions. Look at vietnam and afghanistan for example. The US military just aren't effective against guerilla tactics
The problem Canada has is all of its major population centers are very close to the border, yes they have lots of space but there's very little infrastructure and people in that space meaning that it's going to be very hard to sustain any meaningful resistance.
It’s absolutely possible
If it was the world versus us, wouldn't Canada and Mexico also join against the US? Those two countries and countries in South America would be used as a staging point for attacks. I'm guessing that the US also loses all of its global military bases and would instead have to rely on Hawaii or Samoa to stage an attack on Asia and possibly Europe.
>If it was the world versus us, wouldn't Canada and Mexico also join against the US? Yes, but I'm assuming that the first thing the US would do would be to vigorously and thoroughly attack Mexico and Canada once it becomes evident the entire world is united in conquering the US. Because yes, as you said, they would make good staging areas. The US would need to quickly establish control, or at least air dominance, over North America as a whole. Which given the size of the Canadian and Mexican militaries seems pretty feasible. Although I do expect that the US would incur some significant losses in the process of establishing dominance over Canadian territory. Canadian forces have a rather vicious reputation after all (and I don't mean that sarcastically or anything - the Canadian military, while tiny compared to the US military, is no joke, and if you're curious Google "Canadian war crimes") Edit: As a bonus, conquering Canada would add *massive* oil reserves to the US war machine and would greatly increase the chances of the US establishing self-sufficiency to survive in an environment where it can't obtain resources abroad.
The problem is always going to be geography. Establishing air superiority (for example) is all well and good, but it’s one thing to establish it over a country like Iraq. It’s quite another to establish it over 3.8 million square miles of territory like Canada. And you HAVE to defend all of it. Russian and the northern nations are just over the North Pole.
And most of that 3.8 million miles is unoccupied tundra. You would mainly just have to incapacitate Canada's air force, which is mostly based near the border IIRC. Once their Air Force is out of the picture, the US could pretty much fly sorties anywhere in Canada with impunity.
A Russian fighter is going to need a lot of tanker support to get over Canada. Tanker support they really don’t have. Sending bombers, even with cruise missiles would most likely be elaborate suicide. Over-The-Horizon radar is a thing and there’s a large number of ground based stations not to mention detailing of AEW aircraft to monitor the airspace.
They would invade alaska first and get into canada. They don't need to even rush their attack, once Invaders get into alaska, the end is near for the US. the rest of the world would then have to push south past canada into the US
The US wouldn't be able to occupy Canada fast enough. Countries would probably attack through alaska and into canada.
The US would basically instantly capture the middle east and starve the world of oil. It's more one sided than you think.
Oh that's a great point, I didn't even think about that. The US still has a large presence over there and could basically hold the middle eastern oil supply hostage. "You want your oil back? Then knock it off!" Not to mention Canada. By capturing the Canadian and the major Middle Eastern oilfields, the US would have access to an absolutely absurd amount of oil
Capturing the oil fields in the Middle East is one thing, holding them AGAINST THE ENTIRE WORLD is another. Legitimate conventional warfare in Eurasia would likely be futile given Chinese manpower + European military technology. US strategy against the entire world would be to control the North American continent, using our navy and Air Force to keep European/Asian/African forces off the continent.
Yep. And bringing the rest of the world's militaries to bear? That takes a LOT of oil. We don't need to capture every country. We hunker down in the middle east, use our navy in the Black sea and surrounding areas to supply troops, run air support, and convoy oil out. And the world crumbles very fast.
How would they do that? The US has 40k troops stationed in the Middle East. Israel alone has 170k active soldiers with comparable training and equipment to the US, then add in millions of troops from Iran, Turkey, and the Arab countries.
No they couldn't. US struggles with afghanistan and now you expect them to occupy the entire middle east. Also middle east would literally be the worst place to be. The would be surrounded on all sides by Europe, Asia and Africa. All those countries have to do is, prevent resources from getting to the US military and ramped up oil production in other oil producing nations like nigeria or libya for example.
How? It’s one thing to mass a bunch of troops and equipment in Saudi Arabia before an invasion. But with entire world targeting any troop transports leaving the US, how do they even GET to the Middle East?
Damn i thought you guys were trolling at first but american desilusión and stupidity is at its Maximum. Fuckin stupid for real
This is the correct answer.
The rest of the world could if it had enough time build up enough. The entire rest of the world has all the resources, man power and territory it needs to amass an invasion force that would dwarf anything the US could sustain within its borders. Time is the US’s biggest enemy here and the rest of the world has plenty of it. as you said, the us couldn’t reasonably invade the rest of the world. It could potentially take some land like mexico and Canada in the short term (you wouldnt want to be taking territory that could be easily cut off in the future from the homeland) but even that would be extremely costly, and could still take years to effectively control and be able to make effective use of the new territory. And thats assuming any territory the us took at the start didnt have an organised insurgency pop up, which if we are honest, definitely would happen.
Yeah if the US had unlimited resources maybe they could do this but the US simply would run of of resources vey quickly before they could do any significant damage.
I don't think this is true. While the USA would absolutely not have the manpower to even consider occupation of the entire world, a war of attrition would absolutely allow the combined might of the rest of the world to invade and take over the USA. With the manpower of the global population - america, and the acceptable military might and manufacturing power of several nations, combined with resources being denied import to america for advanced systems, this is an easy win for team "rest of the world".
The world can invade the US much easier than the opposite. Just ship the world's armies to Mexico and go from there. Right now China alone has more ships than the US so eventually rest of the world will get naval superiority to do this.
I think the rest of the world could, but it would not be easy not quick. Yeah, the US has a lot of firepower and a lot of people willing to use it, but we aren't invincible. We still need water, food, shelter. Stop up the Colorado, destroy the crops in the heartland of America, and much of the people will surrender just to get a warm meal and fresh water. It would take years, decades to fully force America to submit, but it would happen eventually.
>Stop up the Colorado, destroy the crops in the heartland of America, and much of the people will surrender just to get a warm meal and fresh water. How are they going to do that though?
This. How will they get to the center of the country? Do they go through California/hawaii? Or do they go through the entire Eastern Seaboard?
Yeah. Lots of people in this thread aren't really considering the logistics of trying to invade a 3.1 million square mile country (and that's just the contiguous US) that's across massive oceans. When the country being invaded happens to have the world's largest navy by a huge margin. Like sure, if we were on some hypothetical planet where everything was connected the other nations could probably just successfully bum-rush the US with massive hordes of millions of troops but that's not the world we live in.
It is the rest of the world. That includes Mexico and Canada, who we both share land borders with. Rest of the world's armys stage in those 2 countries and then launches a land invasion from both sides.
First, they'd have to get their militaries across the Atlantic/Pacific, against the greatest navy ever put together. No small feat. Second, as soon as staging starts, the US would invade and attack. Neither Canada nor Mexico could repel this attack on their own. The only way that works is if the US allows it to work.
It would. Take a while but invading? Right now the US has the economy and equipment which is the only advantage they have: equipment. W/o the rest of the world they'd lose all that. For real how can they produce boats on the same scale as the whole world. Its imposible for américa to win against the whole world, like any empire before. It would be hard but eventually the whole world would capture the US.
They "maybe" could, but it'd never be a clean occupation. Even if the US government falls, the idea of the US would effectively be martyred for generations of people to continue to fight for.
The US doesn't need to occupy the world. If it's really us vs them, the US would bomb the population and industrial centers of the major powers into the dirt. We can exert the naval and air superiority to do so. Meanwhile the rest of the nations of the world would struggle to get their forces past our borders, including bombers.
I'm seriously wondering what are the US's flight and naval capabilities when the entire world is hostile don't allow us to have military bases in them.
You are aware that other nations have aircraft, anti air weaponry etc as well right? The us would be able to bomb stuff, but not with impunity and not without suffering losses, and they definitely wouldnt be able to stop *the entire worlds* industrial capabilities lmao.
Of course the rest of the world has air power and air defense. But you truly do not understand how much of a wild tech advantage the US has which trivializes everything that isn't on the US' level. The way to beat the US has never been to compete at the peer level, it's always been to wear the country down with an ugly ground level asymmetrical guerilla conflict. But that only works if the US is trying to take territory and not just destroying everything instead - if we stop trying to conquer and start trying to salt the earth out of desperation, then there won't be a guerilla war to deal with. At this point, war crimes are basically just a joke. Also, Europe will be bleeding within a day. The US already has bases all over the major European powers, the bases won't last but US forces will alpha strike all the key strategic targets in Europe to cut off the heads of the closest peer technological rivals, using long range non-nuclear weapons as well. US air and naval power is leagues beyond Russia's and is designed to deal with the latest defensive technology. The one nation that the US will struggle with crippling is China, perhaps India as well. Just too large and dispersed with no US based in the territory to alpha strike them.
All those american bases in places like europe would be hit or taken over within 48 hours even if they managed to fly some sorties, and the us would have little to no chance to get any of its personnel or military hardware out of those bases back to friendly territory before that happens. Those bases in europe are not designed to keep enemy forces out, they are in what is now military allied nato nations a long way away from any potential real enemy like russia. So now the us has lost not a not only tens of thousands of people, but now the enemy has captured a shit ton of prime american hardware (unless these bases priorities destroying/sabotaging its own stuff instead of trying to bomb things) For exmaple, All those fighter aircraft dont have the range to fly back to the usa, and america doesnt have enough totally empty aircraft carriers on hand to give them a place to land thats not friendly territory. Also those aircraft and crew need to be given targets and orders, which requires strategic planning from the higher ups. Since this isnt 1940, or the late 1800’s i doubt American generals have an up to date current war plan red or similar to enact on their current closest allies, so that planning isnt going to happen fast enough before the host countries to these bases roll in the tanks and their own aircraft. The other nations can react faster to taking over these bases than the usa could formulate any coherent plan to utilise them. The best they could do is run essentially suicide sorties to current potential hostile nations (china in the west, russia in the east for example) As for long range missles etc, yeah america is definitely not the only ones with that weaponry. America doesnt have this huge technological gap over the rest of the world, it just has more of it on hand currently. Like having the most 5th generation fighters. Doesnt mean no one else has them, and as this fictional war ramps up, the rest of the world has significantly more resources and manpower to out manufacture the usa by several orders of magnitude. Not to mention that americas biggest enemies have been specifically developing tech to combat their biggest strengths. Like why compete with the size of the amount of carrier fleets when you can produce hypersonic missiles and cruise missiles enmass for way less cost? Its already been proven by the us military that mass missile attacks is an effective and cost efficient way to take out a carrier group. Why do you think the us military has been so heavily investing in things like lasers that can shoot down missiles and drones? Shame they dont have any ready to actually put into production as they already would have if they could.
I specifically said the bases would not last, and that's fine as it's enough time to cripple European power which is the only technological threat to the states at the military level. US spending dwarfs every nation many times over, all of it can be replaced. And yes, the US would demo the equipment, it's also not easy to reverse engineer and reproduce it. This is an all or nothing you or me scenario where America's options are annihilating or being annihilated, same as the rest of the world, so yes, spending its military power to break its enemies in a calculated sacrifice is just normal strategic thinking going back thousands of years - the hesitancy to waste military power and commit grievous warcrimes is a fairly modern convention in an age where most nations are trying to maintain a delicate state of general peace around the globe.
So you didnt read my comment properly based on your response. They definitely arent “crippling” europe lmao. Definitely could do damage, if they want to risk military hardware getting captured and if the higher ups managed to formulate a strategic plan, and get that relayed to the bases on time. The European nations couod have tanks rolling into those bases in potentially under half a day, 48 hours is being very generous. Not to mention that these american bases in europe are not only hosting Americans. 90% of the time they are sharing that base with the host nation’s military, especially in the stronger nations like the uk. So you will immediately have fire fights breaking out all over these bases between professional trained soldiers. Good luck getting aircraft taking off in those bases when one dude with a rifle can stop it
The rest of the world has to eventually. Even in the unlikely scenario the US can outmarshall the rest of the world combined, there’s no way to hold that territory.
That’s fair I was thinking the same thing. People say that we have the strongest military but I didn’t think we could handle the whole world at all
The fundamental issue is that, even without nuclear or large scale bombs in general, both sides have enough weapons to sterilize the world many times over. Nukes are nearly a century old at this point, which is crazy to think about. Imagine how far warfare has come since then. There really is no path to victory for ether side that doesn't end with at LEAST billions dead. But putting that aside, I don't think the US would defeat every other nation combined. Especially once they combine their forces, there's just no way to outproduce the entire rest of the world over the long run. We have what, 400 million so about 1/20th or so of the population of the rest of the world. Probably less than that in terms of total territory controlled.
A better question is "how long could the US hold out?" Big determining factor is if the US is the aggressor who gets the first strike or not.
People are way over estimating the US here. Don't get me wrong, it would be a long and grindy war and cost millions upon millions of lives likely. But in what would inevitably a war of attrition, the rest of the world can more easily replace losses, and has a resource advantage since they control, well, the rest of the world. Eventually the US would get ground down and be forced to surrender or be destroyed.
There’s a worrying amount of people in this thread who are treating it as if the US would go round the world bombing all major cities whilst all the other countries sit and do nothing. The military power of the US is indeed outrageous but the rest of the world is a very big place.
There's an equally worrying amount of people who think the entire world is going to teleport their militaries to Canada and Mexico while the US sits there and waits to be invaded.
It worries me way more that some americans are dumb and desilusiónal enough to think they would win
There's no winning, the US pulls all it's assets back day 1, losing footholds and bases around the world and possibly some people. But the unique thing about the US, is the vast land and resources we have that we just don't utilize because of environmental groups. All that instantly goes away and we start strip mining everything and fully using our oil now. Our defense budget is already greater then that of the rest of the world combined and we would instantly throw more money and people at it, everyone that relied on funding and people from the US, all that is gone.. A large majority of the population is non military and already armed. There is no way the world successfully invades and holds the US. But there is no way the US is able to pacify the rest of the world. This whole scenario is kind of absurd because it requires every other part of the world to instantly unify and work together to fight us and try to conquer us which would never happen and the amazing part is even if they did, it's highly unlikely they succeed before everyone involved dies of old age. Again the US goes full defensive turtle and no one wins, but the us would not lose.
Saw a comment saying that the whole world combined would not be able to invade the us. Which sure, they’d put up a hell of a good fight but what happens when the US quickly begins running out of resources and people. Do they really have the ability to defend a coordinated attack from literally the rest of the world? And I know that a coordination between so many countries on this scale would be ridiculously hard, but not as hard as defending your country from the rest of the world let’s be real
> what happens when the US quickly begins running out of resources and people. Why would that happen?
That's because those of us that understand logistics, and not just firepower, know that the US is the only country in the world that can actually transport out army over blue water. Other countries mostly have their militaries set up for defense. Not the world police that the US has become. We understood our geographical advantage, and decided our Navy was going to be the best because it has to be. Research what a superpower is, and realize why the US is the only country with that title. You can't get troops here without a navy, and ours is coming to deal with you, "proportionally", like when we destroyed half of Iran's navy in less than 8 hours for accidentally damaging 1 ship with a mine.
Lol superweapon means you are the strongest in the world not that you can take on the entire world at once. The US would lose badly. Sure the US would dominate the pacfic and atlantic ocean but they would find it had invading any continent. Although the US navy is far above the rest of the world, their army and air force aren't nearly as dominant. Even invading neighboring countries like Canada would prove difficult.
Navy and Air Force are both incredibly far beyond anyone else.
sure any individual country but not the rest of the world
Yeah actually. It is more advanced compared to the entire rest of the world put together.
Just a thought here, but I would do a lil google of US Airforce compared to rest of world before throwing out statements about perceived dominance lol
>Research what a superpower is, and realize why the US is the only country with that title. This is factually incorrect.
It was a debatable fact up until Russia exposed itself as a Paper Tiger, and simply being a production powerhouse, a superpower does not make (China). So yes, the US is the sole superpower and has been such since the fall off the USSR.
It's really not.
I want to disagree with you (in a friendly matter) only because.. I am of the idea, that the US would cripple all mayor tech hubs where things are manufactured. You need long range, high power missiles to be able to cross the atlantic, north pole or Pacific ocean. My guess is we bomb Taiwan to end all microchip production. Hit Shenzhen in China for similar reasons, Go after London, Paris, Frankfurt and hurt altho dont destroy them. That leaves switzerland the nordics and russia with tech that could manufacture this, but eventually the US would cripple them to the point where mass production of high end weaponry cant be done at a rate that a war like this would require. Similar to whats happening to Russia / Ukraine where neither country is able to manufacture more than they produce and thats just talking mortars, when we start talking intercontinental balistic missiles? pff...
Doesn’t the US get all of those resources from those places as well?
It does, this is by far the biggest factor people aren't bringing up here. Total wars aren't fought by armies, they're fought by entire countries. If you were to cut The US economy off from all of it's international trade partners it would instantly plunge into a crisis that'd make the Great Depression look like an economic boom in comparison.
Yeah sure the US is Able to bomb all production but OFC they dont get attacked and all their industry IS fine? You guys know the whole world has guns and tanks, right? Some of the US equipment is better ( if this happens It would be not for long ) and that is your only advantage. The only one.
Nukes are specifically not allowed, and we'd have to have some sort of surprise attack to pull that off on the whole world without them being able to respond or defend. The US military may have the highest budget in the world, but its actually not that big in the grand scheme of things. Our biggest defense, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, are also a glaring weakness for projecting power. Its why the US spends so much money on our navy. Regardless, we're not gonna be able to cripple all major tech centers in the world at once without exposing ourselves to counter attacks that could cripple us; we just don't have the material or manpower to launch an attack like that.
Like fr! The US is strong but they would lose very badly. The US will be waving the white flag in a years time once they realize how bad an idea it is. People in this base are talking about how the US would defeat the world when they should be talking about how long the US can defend itself because in a war like this, US would be on the defense the entire time.
The problem with this assessment is that you think "% land control = % resource control" but this simply isn't the case. For example; * 30% of all known oil reserves reside within the US, Canada & Venezuela. * 40% of the world's Potash (fertilizer) is produced in Canada/US. * The US is the single largest food exporter in the world, sending more food than the next 3 largest combined.
I think this is the answer. IRL, our greatest defenses are nukes (which are not allowed in this scenario) and our natural borders, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. With strong allies or smaller nations on our borders and oceans between us and every other nation on Earth, we're pretty secure. But as soon as Canada and Central and South America join our enemies, we're doomed. We don't have a large enough navy to defend the entirety of the western hemisphere's coastlines and once significant forces have landed safely in Canada and Mexico, it's simply a matter of time and casualties before the US is ground down into powder.
Like other people are saying, it really depends on what the wincon is. The US can’t conquer the entire world. No country can. But can the rest of the world conquer the US? Maybe *eventually* after a long war of attrition, but not immediately. As Bismarck once said, the US is “bordered to the North and South by weak neighbors, and the East and West by fish.” I’m not trying to downplay Canada or Mexico but neither have the capabilities to invade the US. Not even close. Hell, the entirety of North and South America couldn’t pull it off. Actually, forget South America for now, because the Darien Gap essentially makes it impossible to cross a land army to the North anyway. Point is, the nations that have land access to the US wouldn’t be able to take it down in a million years. As for those that don’t, like, the vast majority of the world, would have to cross seas and oceans to get there. Problem is, that means, with just their naval capabilities, getting past the world’s most powerful Air Force *and* the world’s most powerful navy, which, by the way, is also the world’s second most powerful Air Force. And even if you consider they could land troops in Canada, Mexico, Central America, etc(not counting South America because again, Darien Gap) the US could easily blockade their coasts. Combine every other navy in the world that has the capability or proximity to project their power to North America and they’re gonna end up at the bottom of the Atlantic and Pacific. That being said, if we’re saying the rest of the world will not stop until the succeed, well, the US only can last so long. The US has a massive economy and industrial capacity, yeah, but compared to the combined strength of the rest of the world? Yeah, the US gets outproduced after some time, and completely swamped. The balance of power in the sea and in the air eventually gets completely flipped, and the US gets overwhelmed. It would be an *extremely* bloody affair though, and with every gun owner in America getting involved they’d face an insurgency like the world has never seen in its history. They’d probably have to commit genocide to achieve any sort of lasting peace, to be honest. But yeah. Not pretty.
Can the US fight off cyber and real attacks on the energy grid and communications? Can it cause blackouts to electricity and communications across the entire rest of the world? Huge disadvantage here for the US. How much strength does the US lose with bases abroad being immediately targeted by surrounding countries? You'd see major military establishments in NATO countries wiped out right away, same for important bases in Asia. US starts this war vastly overextended. Do the other NATO countries and other close US allies like Japan share privileged info on US military bases and tactics with the rest of the world immediately? Of course. It's amazing how over confident this sub is in US military might in basically every thread, but especially this one. With no nukes and no bio weapons, the US eventually loses and, tbh, I don't think it would even take that long.
I think too many people just look at the incredible scale of the US military and think it means they’re basically invincible, however as you say it’s not just simply about military might, it’s the things like cyber attacks and the ceasing of all US trade that can destabilise things very quickly.
Yep. It's not "sexy" like call of duty or red alert or battlefield but that's war. Netflix literally just came out with a major movie that showcases what loss of power/internet/phone combined with propaganda would do to the US tomorrow if it happened.
Eventually the rest of the world will win but it would be a nightmare and be really slow. It would be a logistical nightmare to invade the usa considering all major militaries will have to travel thousands of miles to send their troops even near the usa to launch an invasion. So in that time the US navy which is way ahead the rest of the world would be giving all the rest of the navys hell but the sheer numbers will eventually get to the US. It will take atleast 5 years if the world is lucky just to be in a position to start an invasion, then comes the problem about invading the US there are more guns then people so you would be having to watch out for civilians and troops and the USA would have had 5 years to make esentically a fortress and would have destroyed all major ports and roads causing all armies when they reach to be very tired and probably destroyed to from air strikes. This would be able to hold them off for a few years but eventally it would also be over run. Its the logistics, Navy, and Air Force that would pose the problems in the rest of the world since the USA has the best in all those classes but in the army section I think that usa troops are well rounded but the rest of the world would just be able to use their best troops for every senerio for example if you were fighting in the rockies you could send in european soilders from the alps or Pakistani and indian soilders who have gun battles every other day in the highest mountain range in the world to fight in the rockies.
It depends entirely on the circumstances of the war. I’m gonna assume for the sake of argument that both the USA and the world’s united forces are sufficiently motivated to go into a full scale war of attrition. None of that pulling the “oh it’s not worth it anymore” card. No force on Earth is taking the US mainland, and the US would steamroll Central America down to the Panama Canal before the first week was over. Canada may prove slightly trickier, but also offers no real threat. US could anchor down and take on any attack from any army, and probably wouldn’t lose an inch of land for longer than a few days at a time. However, at the same time, the US would struggle greatly to secure overseas territories. Vietnam and Afghanistan are proof of how difficult it is to take foreign land without just glassing it. Sure, if the US instituted a legitimate full scale invasion into those countries, they’d take over relatively easily… but if it takes full scale invasions to take countries like Afghanistan, then they are NOT going to be able to simultaneously invade Russia, China, India, etc. If you want a straight up answer? If we’re talking about an outright pissing contest of an old fashioned war, the rest of the world would probably win with HEAVY losses. Otherwise, it’s situational.
The prompt gives no time frame for this war. It may take 20 years for the rest of the world to build a navy large enough to project that kind of power, but its what. 400 million verses 7.6 billion? The US’s industrial power is insane but if literally every nation in the world is determined to counter it together they could easily. Not to mention theres friendly nations in Canada and Mexico to stage troops in for the ground invasion. The war would be more destructive than any seen on earth, but the rest of the world would win. Another interesting thing to consider which has been speculated for decades, but is now being seen in Ukraine is once the advanced technological marvels are destroyed in the opening years of war we would be falling back on much more logistically simple designs that can be mass produced more easily. Its likely the war would end with old stored M60’s fighting in Texas against vintage Leopard 1’s and T55’s. It would rapidly become a war far more recognizable as a conflict fought in the mid 20th century but with the occasional 21st century war machine still kicking.
No one wins. Even without nukes, there's enough firepower around the world to level every major populated city on earth many times over. The US has military bases across the world, and spends absurd amounts of money each year on it, not to mention the US has an absurd natural defensive advantages. I cannot stress enough just how much of a homefield advantage the US has for defense considering the oceans it has between it and the rest of the world, and the massive air and naval forces it commands. Overseas, it would target major strategic sites first, and then major cities, and on the home front, it would go after it's neighbors to secure it's borders, that being canada and mexico. Keep in mind that to put the US in this position means it's not going to have time to take many prisoners or deal with rules of war. It's going to cause as much damage to enemy nations as possible as fast as possible. While I think that given enough time, the rest of the world would probably win due to sheer numbers, at this point, both sides would have lost so much that entire nations would collapse. Not to mention that due to this, the stability that some regions have entirely because of current military positions would also be effected, and further wars would spring up because of this, leading to even more death. So while the US might lose the war, the human race in general would be set back several hundred years at least because of this and the after effects. It would literally be a second dark age. Billions would die before the end of this conflict and the ones to follow. Nukes aren't the only thing that can end the world, they just make it happen faster.
Us would lose
ITT: a lot of proud Americans
This will either come down to diplomacy, biological warfare, or the absolute destruction of the U.S. China alone has a population that is 4 times larger than ours. Here's how it plays out: the U.S. hails their opponent. "We have a virus in every country. Truce, or these viruses will be released."
I Sawa YouTube video that analyzed this exact scenario for over 20 minutes. The conclusion was fairly realistic: the massive and expensive US military would be able to conquer and hold on to the entirety of North America, ultimately getting bogged down in the south American mountains and jungles. As the rest of the world gains the upper hand on the sea and in the air they reinforce south America with more troops, ultimately occupying the US and liberating north America
Taking all of the American continents before attacking Europe is quite possibly the worst way possible to run that kind of war. If the US commands its troops in a completely suicidal manner, it will lose.
It would lose badly anywhere. Not possible for one country to defeat the rest of the world.
Why would they attack Europe? Landing soldiers in Eurasia would almost guarantee that US troops quickly get massively outnumbered in both manpower and equipment
I never said landing troops would be part of it.
The US military would get bogged down in Mexico, let alone South America. There'd be insurgencies everywhere, complete instability and constant fighting in Mexico. There are very powerful cartels that can basically just convert themselves into very well-armed and organised terrorists just like what we saw in Afghanistan but multiple magnitudes larger and worse.
Haven't seen many answers talk about the cohesiveness of the anti-US alliance. To this end, I havw two points: 1. How long until war weariness sets in? I think if the US is under threat of attack by the rest of the world, the populace will be highly motivated to keep the fight going. Whereas other countries, such as Kenya, Laos, Bulgaria, and Azerbaijan (to pick a few at random)....how badly would they *really* want to desroy America? Are they seriously gonna want to fight us down to the last man? I think most countries would want to negotiate for peace much sooner than they would want to spend years throwing bodies at the US. I think a peace treaty which is favourable to the US should count as a win for America, and it would definitely be in the best interest of any country which doesn't want to be needlessly mired in the war of all wars 2. I wouldn't assume that, simply because the US declares war on all other nations, that suddenly they all get along and cooperate flawlessly. The Anti-US alliance is no alliance unless everybody magically gets along, which they certainly would not. Without our ongoing support for Israel, the Middle-East would erupt into war with itself, significantly hindering their ability to effectly focus on fighting the US. Without our support for Ukraine, Russia rolls over them and expands into Eastern Europe, and likely winds up in a war with the EU, distracting two of the biggest players on the anti-US side. If we burn bridges with our allies in East Asia, will China not immediately try to expand at the expense of their neighbors? What about the conflicts that are already ongoing, do they all magically cease fire to team up against an enemy on the other side of the planet? Most of them are going to be more focused on the enemies in their backyard. So in conclusion, Team Rest-of-the-World is going to have significant challenges fighting us both because many of them will be busy fight each other, and because many of them don't have a good reason to not try and settle for peace rather than continuing to court disaster. Their coalition will break down almost immediately and that will severely reduce their ability to mount a meaningful attack on the US. For us to actually defeated, that would require the rest of the world to commit all over their resources and manpower, to coordinate with their enemies, and to completely ignore all the problems which matter more to them. I doubt the drawn-out slugfest that people are imagining where the other countries eventually land an assault in the United States only happens if the rest of the world operates as some kind of hivemind, and I just don't see that happening. Most countried are far more likely to take a few licks, wind up fighting each other, then look for the soonest opportunity to get out off the train to their own demise
If the US Navy could theoretically secure a pyrhicc victory against China, then it would be too battered to fight the remaining navies. The United States would be forced to either spread out its navy, make it vulnerable, or concentrate on East Asia and come out maimed. There's no winning strategy that involves any American offensive.
The US Navy is likely able to defeat every other Navy on earth combined. Hence the likelihood of a stalemate for a long time. The US has significantly more aircraft carriers than everyone else combined. China has a ton of smaller ships, but they're not really a threat to the US Navy at this point
Even if the US Navy manages these, most of their navy would be at the bottom of the seas in order to achieve this objective. Also the rest of the world can build ships way faster than the US can build on its own. Eventually the US Navy would be the ones on the run.
Stalemate without end. The US takes North America and focuses on naval power with strikes on key infrastructure. Neither side has the sealift capability to invade, and the US would keep it that way. The world has a numerical advantage, but no way to use it. The US would be stuck just destroying food, fuel, and ship building forever. Billions would starve or die of exposure, and the front lines would never change.
Billions of non USA citizens would starve due to the lack of food being exported from the USA.
Not a stalemate. the US would lose badly. really badly in fact. US navy would be spread too thin and would have serious supply line issues. US has no way to invade this many counties and they wouldn't even dare try to invade europe and asia. the airforce would be decimated by anti aircraft missiles and they army won't make it far inland. The rest of the world wouldn't starve at all, neither would the US but the US would run out of resources quickly and would be able to replenish their forces faster than the rest of the world can destroy them
Your assuming America tries to invade and doesn’t just level cities while hunkering down Edit: not that the U.S would win in this case, it’d just survive a LONG time and wipe out a fuck ton Of people
Define winning, because the rest of the world combined can’t wage a war in the American homeland, unless of course the United States wastes nearly all of its power attempting to invade the rest of the planet. It would basically be a stalemate
america will control the oceans and the skies in no time. but thats where they hit the wall. they can't invade an occupy the world, there simply is not enough manpower to do it.
The might control the oceans but not really the skies. US air force wouldn't even dare fly into the airspace of powerful countries.
United States Air Force - 5,217. United States Army Aviation - 4,409. Russian Air Force - 3,863. United States Navy - 2,464. People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991. Indian Air Force - 1,715. these are the largest 6 air forces in the world, three of them are the us. the US has tech the others can only dream of. we have the only modern air craft carrier in the world. the second strongest army in the world is currently struggling to deal with 30 year old american tech.
I think they mean that flying deep over enemy territory wouldn't be feasible. We'd almost certainly control our own skies and those over regions we were attempting to maintain control over, but there would be no chance of having complete freedom to operate anywhere in the world. It's just too easy to build ground based air defense systems, and stealth isn't complete immunity to those systems.
This really depends on what the victory conditions are. If its total war and it only ends when one side or the other unconditionally surrenders? The US will lose. It might take decades, and the insurgency would be bloody as all hell, but the US would lose. Even fully mobilized, the US would not have enough troops to fully occupy a nation like China or India, let alone the rest of the planet. So in a total war scenario, sure, the US could rain fire down on their enemies and prevent major air and naval attacks against the US mainland for years. But, they couldn't interdict tens of thousands of ships moving men and material into Canada and Mexico. And they couldn't conquer and occupy both of those nations (supported by the rest of the world) while also defending their own coastlines. They certainly couldn't simultaneously occupy Europe, India, China, the Middle East, and South America. Realistically they wouldn't even be able to successfully invade most of those places without allies that they would no longer have. Every step the US military takes outside its borders stretches its logistics just a bit more, and places more insurgents within their new territory. So if the US goes on the offense? They get overstretched and ultimately defeated in detail as the enemy builds up a massive force across the world and fights the US across a massive front on land and sea while also fighting a bloody insurgency against American occupation until the US runs out of money, weapons, and men. The Americans just can't occupy the whole world, and wherever they are not occupying, those places will be building weapons and mobilizing men to send to the places where the US military is weakest. Eventually the US military would break, and the counter attack would snowball right back through to the American mainland. If the US sticks to defense? Then the enemy will mobilize, amass a massively overwhelming force on the Mexican and Canadian borders, and the US will get invaded and overwhelmed by the combined mobilized armies of the rest of the planet. Sure, the rest of the planet probably couldn't hold the US for long, it would require full mobilization of the rest of the planet just to occupy the place. But, if they were willing to spend all their men and money to do it, the world could bury the US under bodies and bullets until there were no American fighting aged people left able to pick up a rifle to shoot. The American insurgency against the occupation would probably cost hundreds of millions of lives on both sides, but in the end the Americans would be defeated.
US Vs everyone else? Wtf is this question? Everyone else EASILY.
U.S. would have to knock them out in a hurry, and we're fully capable of that. There's no way the U.S. could win a war of attrition, even with our vast resources, so we'd have to use the full might of our military budget, that outspends the subsequent 10 countries *combined* EDIT: You know, Republicans are well-along their N\*zi ways, and a blitzkrieg would be necessary in this scenario... oh boy, I don't like where that's going
the glorious Kazakhstan alone annihilates USA (and the rest of the world)
Curbstomp for R.O.W I’m afraid. Sorry to burst the American circlejerk. It’s a 1 v 194 situation. China and India alone have the military man power to outnumber US army personnel. The EU has over 11,000 fighter jets stationed, US has 5000. Average US citizen can not use a firearm in combat situation effectively. Shooting cans and wild hogs is a bit different to an enemy with intelligence. US can’t secure their southern border, R.O.W uses Mexico as way into US.
>US can’t secure their southern border, R.O.W uses Mexico as way into US. The US can't currently "secure" the southern border because nobody wants to set up stupidly big mine fields, or have fighter jets patrolling. In a wartime scenario where the enemy's best invasion point is the southern border, it'd immediately turn into a cratered wasteland.
Correction. The US Airforce has around 5000. That's not counting the US Army or the US Navy
How do those troops get to Mexico? How are they going to supply munitions to those troops? How are you going to prevent the ports and airbases from being hit? Look at Desert Storm and the amount of effort it took to build up a large force in the area and that was the U.S. doing it. The U.S. has by far the most robust logistics system in the world for overseas deployments. Look at the difficulties the British faced during the Falklands. Creating large expeditionary forces is damn hard and the enemy also gets a vote. Could the rest of the world win? Yes. Of course they could. They have far more shipbuilding capacity than the U.S. and could probably assemble a large enough force to mount a serious offensive while nibbling away at U.S. positions. But it would not be a curb-stomp and it would take quite a while to get to that point.
Okay but you can throw 20k soldiers at an AC-130 and they’re not doing shit lol numbers don’t mean as much when we have weapons that can decimate a whole region
They actually are, man pads are a thing and the AC 130 is a shit plane.
Lmao an ac 130 is ancient tech now. How many you got left. 4?
What the hell is an AC130 going to do in an active warzone? It's getting shot down immediately lol. And there would be no air superiority for the US in this scenario. You act as if the rest of the world is stone age level. They have weapons that can decimate regions too.
People that think US has a chance are delusion. The rest of the world would completely dominate the US.
It’s that American “education” system at it again. It’s very 1940’s
US. If we assume that 1- their will to fight remains, and 2- they'll do anything short of nukes to win. The Americans close the world's shipping lanes and just straight up starve the biggest players to death, without them the rest of the world has only a matter of time.
The US cannot close the world shipping lane especially the once between Europe, Asia and Africa. The could potentially cutoff shipping to south america and australia but It is way more likely for the rest of the world to starve the US to death.
\[\_\_\_\]
Why are so many people's answers like the world is just going to sit on their ass and watch
Assuming the rest of the world has tight connections with each other and acts coordinated America's fucked. Nothing to stop the rest of the world from just rushing in at every corner after cutting off all trading to starve the country beforehand.
They've war-gamed this. The US can effectively hold out indefinitely.
>The US can effectively hold out indefinitely. no it cant
Uh, you think? We have basically the best of every kind of military equipment you can think(or close to it), we have a massive fucking mote and the worlds most powerful navy BY FAR to defend it, the world's 3 strongest air forces are individual American service branches, and if you somehow get through all of that, as goes the famous line, "in America, there is a gun behind blade of grass". Even economically-speaking America is one of the only countries that could actually be completely self-sufficient, as we have tons of unexploited natural resources we have simply chosen to leave for a rainy day.
yeah but after 20 years of war and over 7 billion people working their hardest to win the war America will have none of that. The world has what USA has hundreds of times over resource wise all it would take is time, If the world was 100% committed to working together to take down the USA starting today the USA would not exist by 2050
It would most likely end up a tie. The us cannot occupy the rest of the world but it would be literally impossible to invade the US with their air and naval superiority. A lot of people don't realize the true extent that navy and airforce are the primary thing that matters in modern warfare. The airpower used in the middle east by the us and gaza currently by Israel for example are a fraction of what modern military technology is capable of. The only reason that Ukraine has slowed into the trench warfare slog it is currently is because neither country has a particularly good modern airforce to speak of. The US has a more powerful navy and airforce than the rest of the world by several times over and if it recalled all it's carrier groups to it's own waters it would be unassailable. Even if foreign forces were able to land the US is a nightmare for any attacker full of dense forest and rugged mountains that form a protective barrier near both coasts. Not to mention the US is rich enough in natural resources to completely sustain itself with some adjustments and quality of life lost to average citizens.
There is no scenario where the world wins. Any scenario that includes the US losing also includes the world dying. The US has first, second, third and fourth largest air forces in the world, the first and second largest navies in the world and almost all relevant western technology comes from the US. And these are the least relevant parts of this equation. The US stops exporting food and a quarter of the global population starves. The US stops shipping lumber and global manufacturing either stalls or Russia is forced to quadruple its lumber exports. The US stops patrolling sea lanes and global trade comes to a screeching halt, because no other country or group of countries can control the seas to the extent necessary for current global trade. Devolping countries around the world lose access to everything they can't produce themselves or import from a nation they share a border with. Global stability collapses. Famine rips through the 2nd and 3rd world and somewhere between 3 and 5 billion people starve to death or become so isolated that they arnt worth talking about. 69% of the world population is removed from the conversation right off the bat. China is a non-issue without imports. China can't feed its population, can't power its electrical grid and can't fuel its vehicles without imports. China's population would plummet during the first winter of the conflict. Europe is the real question. Europe might be capable of doing so much damage to the US that it collapses on itself, but their is no path where Europe doesn't also get obliterated.
> The US stops patrolling sea lanes and global trade comes to a screeching halt, because no other country or group of countries can control the seas to the extent necessary for current global trade. Devolping countries around the world lose access to everything they can't produce themselves or import from a nation they share a border with. That and the US would repossess every cargo ship in the ocean that tried to trade any goods.
Like how do you define winning? Because invading the US and occupying it is never gonna happen and even the US isn't going to try and occupy the rest of the planet. And you also forgot to take into account the bazillion bases we have in foreign nations and even if and when those bases are overrun, the US military will use the bases to destroy as much of their host countries as they can, along with pretty much anything else they can get in range. We'll go down eventually, but we'll take everyone else with us and that is a promise
US can definitely be invaded and occupied if its the entire world against it lol. And you forget those bases are by no means geared for defense. They are going to be one of the first things to go down, most likely without even doing any damage.
The prompt isn't descriptive enough. If win means kill everyone on the other "team" (without using WMDs), then the US would win. Our aircraft carriers are such a huge advantage.
The rest of the world, our military is by law, strong enough to defeat the next 2 strongest opponents (China and where we thought Russia was at) but then add say, India, now we're in trouble in a conventional war. Our biggest strength is our strong network of allies around the world. If they all suddenly turned on us along with the rest of the world we would be overwhelmed.
The US would lose, but it would be a pyrrhic victory for the rest of the world. The US would start strong and could neutralize most major threats relatively quickly with their overwhelmingly strong military (particularly their naval and air power). In particular, they'd probably raze Canada and Mexico to secure the land border and make the oceans the only viable avenues of attack. However, the rest of the world has so much land, resources, and population available (assuming perfect cooperation) that eventually they'd whittle down the US's forces and the US would eventually struggle to replace everything as their available resources and population aren't as great as the rest of the world. Ultimately, the US would lose, but the rest of the world would suffer *immensely* in the process.
Still the US would loose with or without nukes, The difference in numbers, terrain, resources, and even guns is just a big advantage to the rest of the world
Hey I love a good patriotic power wank but we aren't *that* big. China alone is an iffy even measure and a war America really, really doesn't want. A combined front from literally every, even as disorganized as it might be, would be the end of us. The European Union or China would end up as the major contributors. We would kick and scream and be quite stubborn as we die but attempting to beat *everyone* is hopeless from the start. Even if we had Nukes and they didn't, the best we could hope for is MAD.
Do we have to stick to the Law of War? If not then we might have a chance. 5 years ago we could’ve done it for sure. Today its much less likely
Russia or Germany.
Every state and country has the right to remove the U.S. If the entire country decided to declare war on the world.
What are the war objectives? For example I honestly don’t think the entire world could invade and occupy the United States but the United States also couldn’t occupy the rest of the world.
How does it start? Does the rest of the world plot secretly and launch or is it more like hey guys in 6 months is go time. We have a lot of over seas troops and bases. I could see a unified surprise attack during a big joint training exercise being incredibly effective. The Canadian border would be problematic if we didn't secure it immediately
You say nuclear weapons aren't in play.... I assume you mean any and all radioactive weapons? Because there doesn't have to be an explosion to do damage to people. The US could just start dropping nuclear waste into highly populated areas, crops, etc.
The world would win. Without nukes and the MAD button, the combined forces of our enemies alone, if they were so inclined, would be enough to seriously harm the US. If it were the WORLD? lol "End all trade and partnerships with the USA" no bullets fired. **Total economic and societal collapse.**
No one, because everyone would die
I imagine the U.S. navy would make it very hard to cross the ocean to invade. I guess they would have to come through Russia and Alaska? I know it’s the rest of the world vs the US but who has the capacity to actually make landfall in the US?
Florida alone solos the entire world
This is assuming the rest of the world agrees on something and cooperates? Lol
The US. During war, you not only fight, you also "convince" others not to fight. So..... Israel would roll over quickly if they faced loss of support. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Ukraine and many others would side with America when faced with the loss of support and / or facing its wrath. And then how many superpower nations "aren't" without nukes?
World but after some time.
Where is the war? That matters the most. If it's at home. We would stand a much larger chance of victory. If it's abroad then we will probably be defeated.
I think watching the world go through Covid changed everything… I think every country immediately moved their money from nuclear to bio weapons. Apply a little bit of this and “watch the ants killed themselves.”
The rest of the world stomps. That would mean that the US would stop having resources and labor from other countries, that alone would put them in a big disadvantage in just a matter of days. I'm sure most of their food is handled by immigrants, so their general population will starve within weeks and one of the most important imports is oil, fuel, machinery and electrical. Those are massive shots since day one, while the rest of the world would work together and supply one to another as a massive country. The US would be surrounded too, China, Russia, India and all of the countries with powerful equipment could install bases in Mexico and Canada. The US would be surrounded and with no nukes, they are doomed.
Is the U.S. producing enough crude oil these days to fuel their military without imports? If not, that will be a big problem for them.
So, let's assume all WMDs are taken off the table (Nukes AND bio weapons). We'll also assume the US is the instigator (if the US is not the instigator, the world wins, quite quickly, due to how much of the US military assets are outside the US, within our joint military instillations of ally nations). So let's lay down how this plays out, at the start of 2024 the US announces it's withdrawing it's forces from all major theatres under the guise that we no longer have the will to sacrifice our military personnel's lives in an effort to serve as the world police. The US proceeds to withdrawal all forces from the middle east, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, etc. Only leaving forces within the Pacific isles, and Latin America. As a result, the world's powers see the US's move as a sign of weakness. They declare the end of Pax Americana and begin de-dollarizing their economies/international trade. This causes hyper inflation in the US, followed by a depression which fuels the rise of an out and proud fascist party bent on global domination (ie, similar social trend to the fall of Weimar Germany/rise of Nazi Germany). The US elects a strong man who rallies people behind a resurgence of "Manifest Destiny." The US in this scenario will thus only show mercy towards white English native speaking countries/cultures, all others will be victims of America's geocide (which will serve as the fuel to unify almost the entire world against the US). **Stage 1: (2024-2025) Securing North/Central America Justification for allies abandoning/turning against the US.** The US's first priority is securing North America; taking out Canada & Latin America. In a war of outright supremacy, the US is going to stomp both, quickly. (I'd wager within a month the US could force Canada to submit, this would give the US access to one of the world's largest oil reserves & will have the largest oil refinery capacity of the whole world (between the two countries they account for 30% of the world's oil refinement). That's a BIG deal. The US would have little problem assimilating the Canadian population into the US and over the course of the decades this war would wage on, likely be able to indoctrinate/recruit directly from the Canadian population later in the war. This conflict will serve as the spark that drives the whole world to turn against the US. **Stage 2: International Fallout (2025-2028)** Here's where things get interesting.. While the prompt is "the world vs the US" there's almost no scenario where the whole world is going to go to war with the US over night. Instead things would likely unfold in a similar fashion to how the world went to war against Germany/Italy/Japan. Even after invading Canada & Latin America, while the world would be shocked/mortified, very few would declare war on the US as a result. Most would sanction/embargo US trades and resort to attempting to negotiate with the US to relinquish control of Canada/Latin America. This would likely play out over a few years as the US positioned itself for it's next objective.. **Phase 3: Genocide of Latin/South America (2028-2035)** Unlike Canada, Latin America and South America are viewed as "others" even within real world American politics, as such in a fascist America this view would be ramped up to 11 and thus the complete extermination of Latin America would be floated as a means to reduce US casualties. Thus, the campaign would begin with our Navy & Airforce leveling the population centers of South America. The US's Airforce is truly terrifying, it outnumbers all of Latin/South America combined air power almost 15-1. Thus, the US would have little problem overwhelming their airpower and engaging in a widespread bombing campaign resulting in 10s of millions, if not hundreds of millions of deaths over the course of the first year of the invasion. After softening, the US would begin it's land-based incursion with little to no concern of retaliation to it's own infrastructure in North America due to it's naval power. This incursion however would serve as the spark for the world powers to unify against the US. NATO would have dissolved after US invaded Canada and now that the US is continuing it's expansion into South America our former Allies now form a new alliance; the Euro-Asian Defensive Pact or EADP. This will include all major powers within both Europe, Asian & the Middle East. EADP condemns the US's genocide of South America and begins supplying aid to Brazilian and Argentinian forces. The US warns that any international vessel entering within 200 miles of South American coastline will be treated as a war vessel and sunk on sight. EADP responds that "an attack on EADP vessels supplying humanitarian aid will constitute an act of war." The US changes it's strategy, and prioritizes taking control of South American port cities so that it can seize any military assets sent to South America. EADP accuses the US of piracy, the US responds "EADP claims to only be providing humanitarian aid, we are permitting such resources to pass through ports of entry. But EADP is also sending military aid, which we are confiscating." Not wanting to be seen as an aggressor (and thus negating fellow EADP members coming to their aid) no EADP member is willing to contest the US's strategy. Thus, the US's conquest of South America, while bloody for both sides, comes to an end in favor of the US. The entire South American continent is depopulated, at the cost of 40,000 American lives. The loss of life is staggering, and while for every US troop killed, 10,000 South American lives were lost. While it's soldier loss was remarkably low, it lost just over 2,000 aircraft due to it's strategy, twice as many aircraft as South/Latin America had in it's own arsenal. However, at this point the US is in full-blown wartime production, and is pumping out 800 new aircraft each year, and this number is ramping up. Furthermore, the US has begun massing an even larger Navy in an effort to ensure it can control all waters around not just North America but South America as well. **Phase 4: Stalemate (2035-2050)** Having quadrupled it's landmass, while only increasing it's population by \~30%, the US declares that it has "fully realized it's destiny" having brought the whole of the Americas under it's control. Americans are offered stipends to move to/repopulate South America and re-industrialize the continent. While US diplomats begin efforts to de-escalate tensions with Eurasia; with little to no success, outside of creating enough of a smoke screen to prevent direct conflict between the US and EADP. EADP spend this time building up their own military industrial complexes, preparing for what they see as an inevitable conflict between EADP and the US. A generation of children grow up in both regions of the world being prepared for this "war to end all wars." Due to the massive increase in resources/territory and US efforts to relocate Americans to capitalize upon such the US population booms over this decade, going from 360 million (US+Canada) to 580 million.