# How long could the U.S. last against an enemy of collective nations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2007, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404 "2007-01-18T02:15:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/61 "2007-01-27T16:07:57Z")
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus] “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” ~ Sun-Tzu ~ [/QUOTE] Hey, they started it! ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/62 "2007-01-27T16:32:13Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] What happens after all this is over and done with? Does the US occupy every country its smacked down to stop them rebuilding armed forces on the QT? [/QUOTE] Well, the thread title implies nothing more being necessary but surviving against the rest of the world. Focus on the biggest threats, take out key infrastructure and military installations, and you don’t need to bother with invasion. It takes time and massive amounts of resources to build up a military force other than just an army of people with sticks. Shipyards take time to build, are obvious to spy satellites, and even if hidden, the logistics can easily be seen through purchases of huge amounts of steel and other products. I’m just saying it would be easy to keep every nation in the world from building up a Navy, and probably pretty easy to do surgical strikes against plane and tank manufacturers, or just airports and military depots. Once you have such domination of the seas, you can keep it that way indefinitely if everybody else is hostile. Just keep them from gaining sea power, and work at staying the dominate air power, and no force can touch us, other than ICBMs. (if that tactic is used, well, game over) ---
**Author:** ![lokij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@lokij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lokij)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/63 "2007-01-27T17:20:01Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] What happens after all this is over and done with? Does the US occupy every country its smacked down to stop them rebuilding armed forces on the QT? Once its expended all its weaponry (and assuming the US is as efficient and effective as claimed) then what? How long can it keep making first strikes against the rest of the world to keep them off balance? No country has been able to seize the entire world for itself militarily. The best that has been achieved this way was the Mongolian empire and that didn’t last long after the death of its inspirational founder. If the US has such trouble keeping Iraq happy, what will it do with the rest of the world? [/QUOTE] Presumably we would enjoy our position in the world as the de-facto rulers. If some other country wants to enjoy such benefits as a paved highway system not riddled with bomb craters, any trans-oceanic shipping whatsoever, any semblance of a working electrical grid, any working rail transport or telephone network or oil production… they completely disarm and we allow them to re-build under our protection. I imagine they’d have to purchase or arrange purchase for many materials through us in order to rebuild by that point. This is true hegemony, unlike the partial hegemony we enjoy today. ---
**Author:** ![lokij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@lokij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lokij)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/64 "2007-01-27T17:23:18Z")
[QUOTE=lokij] Presumably we would enjoy our position in the world as the de-facto rulers. If some other country wants to enjoy such benefits as a paved highway system not riddled with bomb craters, any trans-oceanic shipping whatsoever, any semblance of a working electrical grid, any working rail transport or telephone network or oil production… they completely disarm and we allow them to re-build under our protection. I imagine they’d have to purchase or arrange purchase for many materials through us in order to rebuild by that point, we might even tax them. This is true hegemony, unlike the partial hegemony we enjoy today. [/QUOTE] Also, unlike occupied Iraq with it’s 4th generational warfare constraints, in a world dominated thus so it wouldn’t be necessary for them to be happy with us.. just obedient. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/65 "2007-01-27T17:24:09Z")
The issues I see is (again non-nuke, non-bio): The floating US Navy. This ships would be sitting ducks in the face of a large scale missle attack. The Navy would become a submarine force. The fuel situation. We would have to switch to coal based liquid fuel very fast. All other alternatives would take too long to ramp up, except for seizing oil wells. Our space based technology is fairly safe, but that is quickly changing, as China has just shown the ability to shoot down old, large, maneuverability weather satilites. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/66 "2007-01-27T18:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=lokij] Presumably we would enjoy our position in the world as the de-facto rulers [/QUOTE] Again, how? Even Nazi Germany was able to keep high technology projects like the ME-262 and V-2 running until very late on in the war. Can the US keep finding and eliminating parts of the world contributing to the anti-US war effort? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/67 "2007-01-27T19:13:10Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] Again, how? Even Nazi Germany was able to keep high technology projects like the ME-262 and V-2 running until very late on in the war. Can the US keep finding and eliminating parts of the world contributing to the anti-US war effort? [/QUOTE] Bad example. The tech was much lower then. Precision bombing was not very precise. There were no infrared spy satellites or spy planes flying. How long would this war last in your opinion. I think as occupation is not an issue for the US side, it should only last 2-3 years or until the day Nukes fly. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/68 "2007-01-27T20:22:14Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] Bad example. The tech was much lower then. Precision bombing was not very precise. There were no infrared spy satellites or spy planes flying. [/QUOTE] I was thinking of modern day Iran hiding its nuclear facilities underground from the Israelies. [QUOTE=What Exit?] How long would this war last in your opinion. I think as occupation is not an issue for the US side, it should only last 2-3 years or until the day Nukes fly [/QUOTE] I was thinking either a lot longer or shorter till the nukes fly. Either the world takes a knock on the chin from the US straight away and Russia (joined by the other smaller nuclear capable nations) go all out or the world plays a waiting game and builds up their forces. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/69 "2007-01-27T21:41:14Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] I was thinking of modern day Iran hiding its nuclear facilities underground from the Israelies. [/QUOTE] That is a better example. I wonder how well they could really hide such facilities from scrutiny in the kind of war we are speculating on. > [@](#): > > I was thinking either a lot longer or shorter till the nukes fly. Either the world takes a knock on the chin from the US straight away and Russia (joined by the other smaller nuclear capable nations) go all out or the world plays a waiting game and builds up their forces. That is the key problem with this scenario. I think it has to go Nuclear, Bio or Chemical. I cannot conceive of what would cause a war as the Op described and not lead to WMDs being used. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2007, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/70 "2007-01-27T22:06:49Z")
WMDs are a nice easy way to circumvent the US Navy and Airforce, they’d probably be the first option for Russia, France, the UK to attack the US with ICBMs. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2007, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/71 "2007-01-29T19:15:42Z")
Right. If you use your mind-control slugs on the nuclear command and control facilities of Britain, France, China, and Russia, and they launch a surprise first strike against the US, well, that’s it. We’re done. But the rest of the world gets plastered too, even if our ICBMs get taken out before they can be launched, since our SLBM forces are more than sufficient to nuke Moscow, London, Beijing, Paris, etc, etc, etc. Of course, all this presupposes mind control slugs and total operational secrecy for a nuclear first strike. And we end up with the destruction of civilization as we know it. If you postulate mind control slugs and nuclear weapons then the game becomes pretty uninteresting. So you have to postulate mind control slugs where for some reason the slugs don’t want to use nukes, just conventional forces. But you have to mind control both sides to avoid nukes. And then you have to figure out what the slugs are up too. What do the slugs want? So a scenario with mind control slugs is even more complicated than a “real life” US vs the entire world war. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2007, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/72 "2007-01-29T19:34:57Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Right. If you use your mind-control slugs on the nuclear command and control facilities of Britain, France, China, and Russia, and they launch a surprise first strike against the US, well, that’s it. We’re done. But the rest of the world gets plastered too, even if our ICBMs get taken out before they can be launched, since our SLBM forces are more than sufficient to nuke Moscow, London, Beijing, Paris, etc, etc, etc. Of course, all this presupposes mind control slugs and total operational secrecy for a nuclear first strike. And we end up with the destruction of civilization as we know it. If you postulate mind control slugs and nuclear weapons then the game becomes pretty uninteresting. So you have to postulate mind control slugs where for some reason the slugs don’t want to use nukes, just conventional forces. But you have to mind control both sides to avoid nukes. And then you have to figure out what the slugs are up too. What do the slugs want? So a scenario with mind control slugs is even more complicated than a “real life” US vs. the entire world war. [/QUOTE] Why that is simple, they want to take over the world to get all of our wimmin foke. The reason why they could not take the US is that our TV broadcast system interferes with their bodies and so they need to use the rest of the world to stop our broadcast abilities without it going nuclear as then they do not get our wimmin foke. “Ah Ha” you say. “But Canada has the same frequencies that we do”. “Au Contraire”, says I. “The Canadians are not being directly controlled, but rather went along with the UN resolution and the request of the Queen.” See, simply explained. Jim (well simply explained using basic 1950s Sci-Fi concepts) ---
**Author:** ![Horemheb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Horemheb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horemheb)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/73 "2007-01-30T01:15:22Z")
It certainly seems that some of you are comparing modern European (and other) armies with the armies of countries the US has been in war with before. Remember that most European countries have American aircraft (and other modern aircraft). Take the F-16 as an example: The US Air Force has 2547 F-16s, while the rest of the world have 2401 F-16s ([cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Operators)). The US Air Force has never been in combat with aircraft like Eurofighter Typhoon, Mirage, SU-37, or even a JAS Gripen. Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Israel, South Korea and Japan all have large modern air forces. Russia has a huge one, but it is difficult to assess its combat ability. Even countries like Egypt (224 F-16s) and Saudi-Arabia (195 F-15s) have pretty well equipped and modern air forces. The stealth issue. Stealth does not mean invicibility. Stealth aircraft are simply harder to detect. Even the Serbs managed to shoot down an F-117 in 1999 (the Serbs figured that they could detect the stealth aircraft using their obsolote long-wave radar). More modern air forces have a wide array of tools for detecting these aircraft (read [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#How_stealth_aircraft_could_potentially_be_detected)). Another problem facing US vs. The Rest when it comes to air superiority, is the fact that the US is located across the Atlantic of the Pacific. Aircraft carriers would face a number of threats crossing these waters, including nuclear submarines and missiles. Anyway: A military conflict between the US and the Rest would probably end in a stalemate, as an invasion of the US would prove impossible and a US invasion of, well, anywhere would be just as disastrous. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Joe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Evil\_Joe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Joe)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/74 "2007-01-30T01:38:14Z")
[QUOTE=Seven] It might be bad for a few days, but how many of these gun owners have a stockpile of ammo? Most people I know (the average person) who have guns only keep a small amount of ammo at home. They normally pick some up on the way to the range. When I lived in the states and had guns, I had at best 150 rounds of 9mm, perhaps 20 shotgun slugs and a box or two of light target load shells, and 300 or so .22 rounds in my house. That wouldn’t last long. Once an invation starts, getting rounds is going to be hard. If we use Katrina as a backdrop for an attack, the looting would start as soon as people knew there were not enough police to stop them. Gun shops would be one of the first looted. If the attack moves from So-Cal up to No-Cal, they might be able to start bringing shipments in, but bullets would be low on the list. How long did it take to get water and basic supplies into Katrina’s ground zero? So, where would average gun-owner Joe get bullets? [/QUOTE] Thats why smart Americans keep a bow too! 😉 Also many more people ( baby boomer gen ) than you would expect have reloading equipment. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/75 "2007-01-30T01:58:10Z")
[QUOTE=Rucksinator] Don’t fight the hypothetical. But if you really want me to come up with an uneducated, unlikely scenario, then I will. Dick Cheney gets elected POTUS in 2008. He expands the war to Iran and then to Saudi Arabia. The UN gets pissed, and he tells them to go piss up a rope. He expands the war to every ME country, including Israel. The rest of the world gets fed up with us fucking with the oil supply. [/QUOTE] Well, in that case, it depends on how well the hard left blames it all on Bush. If they manage to convince us that it’s our fault for historical oppression of various attacking nations (Look at the Chinese Exclusion Act! The Cold War was largely our fault! We screwed Germany over after WWI!), we may well give up a great deal, à la Chamberlain, and not put up much of an insurgency. If we were as fully motivated as during the height of WWII, and had no reservations about hitting back as hard as necessary to survive, I think a conventional war is still winnable. The superior collective resources of the world don’t mean much when most large production centers are easy targets for rocketry. ---
**Author:** ![lokij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@lokij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lokij)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/76 "2007-01-30T03:49:14Z")
[QUOTE=Horemheb] It certainly seems that some of you are comparing modern European (and other) armies with the armies of countries the US has been in war with before. Remember that most European countries have American aircraft (and other modern aircraft). Take the F-16 as an example: The US Air Force has 2547 F-16s, while the rest of the world have 2401 F-16s ([cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Operators)). The US Air Force has never been in combat with aircraft like Eurofighter Typhoon, Mirage, SU-37, or even a JAS Gripen. Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Israel, South Korea and Japan all have large modern air forces. Russia has a huge one, but it is difficult to assess its combat ability. Even countries like Egypt (224 F-16s) and Saudi-Arabia (195 F-15s) have pretty well equipped and modern air forces. The stealth issue. Stealth does not mean invicibility. Stealth aircraft are simply harder to detect. Even the Serbs managed to shoot down an F-117 in 1999 (the Serbs figured that they could detect the stealth aircraft using their obsolote long-wave radar). More modern air forces have a wide array of tools for detecting these aircraft (read [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#How_stealth_aircraft_could_potentially_be_detected)). [/QUOTE] An F-16 doesn’t tell you much in and of itself. There are Tons of F-16s out there as you say, but how many are the newest upgrade package (that would be the F-16 E/F or ‘Block 60’)… how many have sufficient quantitites of the newest and most effective air to air missiles (believe it or not, many countries skimp on this and after a few dozen spent shots would have no reserves)? The Eurofighter has a total of just over 100 airframes currently built, the UK has recently diverted 78 of their planned purchase to Saudi Arabia. Now… I’m not saying the Eurofighter isn’t a competent plane, especially up against Flankers, F18s and F16s but the consensus I’ve read over and over say the F-22, JSF and even an upgraded F-15 would likely eat it’s lunch, especially in number. Rafale is much the same only with even fewer produced and very questionable avionics intergration. Gripen is a very capable package but it is what it is which is small, limited range and armament intended for small countries to defend their airspace with a credible force. Middle Eastern airforces are notoriously poor in performance resulting from bad training and corruption in who they put in as pilots. Stealth doesn’t equal invincibilty, but it’s a major tool and gives a big edge to a well trained pilot operating with good intelligence and proper flight plans. It’s a tool nobody else has. We don’t need to operate from carriers in many theaters, we have in flight refueling capabilty and bases of operation that even in the scenario presented we’d probably not abandon. No matter how you slice it, the US has overwhelmingly dominant airforces . ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/77 "2007-01-30T04:17:43Z")
Why all the handwaving about plausibility and mind-control slugs? My first thought on reading the thread title was that it would make a cool real-time strategy computer game. In that context, would the game be at all balanced? Assume unlimited quality in regards to game design. ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2025, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/78 "2025-12-30T21:40:32Z")
Bringing this back to life because it seems interesting to me that back in 2007 nobody thought of fracking (the US is now the world’s biggest producer of oil), of Fox News (no mind slug necessary, just propaganda) or of a phenomenon like trump twice president. And no, we (RoW) would not invade you. Never. We would liberate you. Come on, repeat after me: li - be- rate. Whether you want it or not. And finally: yes, the USA is a very mighty military power. Reminds me of a quote by Bertolt Brecht: [![](https://gutezitate.com/zitate-bilder/zitat-das-grosze-karthago-fuhrte-drei-kriege-nach-dem-ersten-war-es-noch-machtig-nach-dem-zweiten-war-bertolt-brecht-225968.jpg) ](https://gutezitate.com/zitate-bilder/zitat-das-grosze-karthago-fuhrte-drei-kriege-nach-dem-ersten-war-es-noch-machtig-nach-dem-zweiten-war-bertolt-brecht-225968.jpg) The big Carthage fought three wars. It was still mighty after the first one. It was still inhabitable after the second one. It could not be found after the third one. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2025, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/79 "2025-12-30T22:39:58Z")
As a nuclear power with a large land mass and population and diverse resources, I’m sure the US could _survive_ indefinitely unless and until the nukes start flying. It would just be a lot poorer, and likely more tyrannical. North Korea on a much larger scale, essentially. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2025, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404/80 "2025-12-31T01:42:37Z")
Given a “coalition of the willing” scenario, wouldn’t their first targets be our military bases in their own countries? Once the host nation turns hostile, things tend to become “interesting.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-long-could-the-u-s-last-against-an-enemy-of-collective-nations/388404.md?page=5)