Subsequent to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, George Bush talked a good game (to some people’s surprise) and he declared that he was going to kick some butt (to nobody’s surprise).
I was wondering, though: he stated “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists…” What if the whole world called his bluff “Nah, George, we don’t like you that much. We’re with them”. Could the US military, being the only superpower, take on the whole world and win?
No
What do you mean NO? GW says we’re rough and tough and hard to bluff. And he has an 80% approval rating so that must be true.
First off Hayden, welcome to the boards and second, this probably is going to end up in Great Debates (or maybe even IMO). Don’t get ofended when the mods come along and move it there.
And I agree with China Guy. We can’t always believe everything we read in USA Today.
First off Hayden, welcome to the boards and second, this probably is going to end up in Great Debates (or maybe even IMO). Don’t get ofended when the mods come along and move it there.
And I agree with China Guy. We can’t always believe everything we read in USA Today.
First off Hayden, welcome to the boards and second, this probably is going to end up in Great Debates (or maybe even IMO). Don’t get ofended when the mods come along and move it there.
And I agree with China Guy. We can’t always believe everything we read in USA Today.
[Steve off of Crocodile Hunter]
This one’s a beaut! As you can see, it’s a rare triple post!
A while back before 9/11, there was a thread wondering if the US could take over the whole world by force. I don’t remember the end score, but some said yes, most said no.
Seeing how many billions have been spent already and how crappy it has been just to clean up and retaliate after one (albeit very nasty) terrorist strike from a relatively small group of people from far away, it appears quite plain that no one country could take over the rest of the world by force today, seeing as how we share some pretty scary technology and will help each other out.
Please tell me you’re kidding.
In any event, if the rest of the world actively unites against the United States, I think we’re screwed. Between China, the remains of the Soviet Union, and the non-U.S. members of NATO, we’d be outgunned and outarmed. Sure, our newest weapons may give us some benefits, but not enough to overcome the numerical advantages the Other Side would have.
Fortunately, the rest of the world has not yet decided to gang up against us. Give George W. Bush another two years, though, and who knows?
If it ever did come to Us versus Everyone then it would undoubtedly turn nuclear. All the superpowers have nukes, so it would turn into one messy ordeal. No matter how fanatical some may be, I seriously doubt that anyone wishes for the destruction of the world, as that would surely be the case. In a nuclear war there can be no winners, everyone dies.
Let me add some thoughts that the research minded or the incredibly knowledgeable can add / respond to:
World population is 6billion USpopulation is 0.28billion
US has a vast technologicial superiority over most of the world. US merely has a technological superiority over its closest competitors.
US has a higher military budget than all of NATO combined. Once I heard someone state that US has a higher military budget than everyone else in the whole world combined but I don’t know if that one is true.
US has more nukes than everyone combined
US has the strongest economy in the world. If it were put on a wartime footing, the US could churn out tanks, planes, and bombs faster than anyone else in the world.
On the other hand…
US vs. everyone would require a 3 or 4 front war.
“Asynchronous warfare” (the US term for any type of act that can’t be stopped with big bombs e.g. terrorism)
Lots of other coutries have nukes
Some vital military resources are not located in the US (e.g. oil, etc.)
US citizens tend to want to quit every war once enough US soldiers are killed that all their relatives can’t get interviewed on CNN. (The US may be soft).
Can anyone out there expand upon these points and back them up with more than the armchair facts that I did?
Nuclear war is simply unthinkable. A test of that statement where major nations were involved is the Korean War. The US was engaged against China and nuclear weapons weren’t used. The war was allowed to drag on into a stalemate and finally ended in an armistice that still is in place.
Getting one or two nuclear devices by a bunch of nuts isn’t so unthinkable. This, not ICBMs is a real danger in my opinion.
**US citizens tend to want to quit every war once enough US soldiers are killed that all their relatives can’t get interviewed on CNN. (The US may be soft). **
I disagree with this assumption. We are not soft but we value life and will not accept wars that are not winable.
These hypothetical scenarios have no place in GQ. I can’t even begin to envision a scenario where the US would be compelled to “take on the whole world”. All this thread will do is inspire a bunch of nationalistic jingoism.
If the US did decide to take on the rest of the world, the rest of the world could just close their borders with the US.
Without trade and a supply of the US’ much needed oil, if would start to crumble pretty quick IMO. The US might outgun many countries, but it needs those same countries in many other ways.
In other words, cut the blood supply to the arm and the fist will stop punching you.