When I said “Don’t fight the hypothetical” I meant it’s not important why it happens; it’s a hypothetical situation. I’ll admit that whether or not our troops are in the ME when it happens is important, and what the rules are (I say Capture the Flag, but that’s just me. 
)
Would that be good or bad for the US? Because my first thought was that that would put us at a disadvantage. But I wonder if our troops over there could take control of the oil supply. So if we get attacked, are we better off with our troops over there or over here?
But how could our troops “over there” hold out? The “rest of the world army” wouldn’t have to cross an ocean to attack them, thus naval and air supremacy would mean much less there.
Are we outlawing tactical nukes? Because if we aren’t, all the armies in the Mid-East are toast. We’d still have local superiority, and with forces already primed and in combat stance, we could wipe out all the other air forces before they ever got off the ground. Then the Navy could take care of any forces that managed to get a rowboat afloat.
Once we go nuke, why wouldn’t everyone else. We can beat all the air forces and Navies of the world, but I do not think we can stop all the nukes.
Jim
First strike, and we can get most of them. 
But the rational approach would be to recall all of our troops and use them to secure Mexico and the Canal.
But it is important why it happens. In any remotely plausible scenario resulting in a global anti-US war, the conditions giving rise to the war won’t develop overnight. Assuming time to build up forces, the US is toast. 300 million people simply aren’t going to beat 6 billion. Not without a dramatic advantage in technology and industrial base, but Europe and Japan have the technology and plenty of industry, throw in China and India for industry and they can pump out tanks and aircraft carriers and the like at rates the US can’t hope to match. But if this hypothetical war happens out of the blue at current military strengths, then at the very least the US won’t lose, because its navy in a defensive posture simply can’t be beat by anything anyone else currently has, rendering transoceanic invasions impossible. The US couldn’t hope to conquer the rest of the world, simply not enough manpower to do it, but it would handily fend off any attacks. Barring nukes, of course. If nukes are in play everyone loses.
Funny thing about ramping up… you have to have the capacity to do it and that includes security. Yes, right now… unmolested Europe and Asia have the technological and industrial base necessary to play catch up witht he US. I seriously doubt we’d let them hang on to that capability for long in the scenario described. We have complete and utter naval, air and space dominance over the entire globe and are the Only nation capable of projecting force anywhere on earth. If it came down to the scenario of the world vs. us with no nukes, we’d first annihilate any existing challenges to our military supremacy, airbases and naval bases first. Then we’d go after the transportation and communications networks of the major powers, rails, bridges, broadcasting centers, server farms, undersea cables. Then we’d hit vital industrial assets like shipyards, powerplants, dams, manufacturing centers, refineries, oil platforms ect. If we were ruthless and committed, the rest of the world would find it very hard to get the breathing room and assets to begin to produce the material to challenge our superiority. This would require our nation to be on total war footing but it is possible. It hasn’t been widely reported but recently and very quietly the Air force and Navy has been running tests and doing studies on converting our planes to run on coal and bio-derived fuels. If push came to shove our military would have the fuel they need though we all might be walking or going electric Very quickly and messily. We wouldn’t exactly concquer the world in the sense that we’d take and hold territory (outside of possibly Canada and Mexico as already mentioned) but it would leave us the only advanced nation in a world of howling chaos, starvation and economic collapse.
How on earth would the US prevent a military buildup in Europe and Asia? Just because you can project force like no one’s business doesn’t mean you can control the globe. To prevent buildups you’d have to occupy half the planet. You’re having trouble occupying a third rate regional power in a third rate region. Have fun occupying China. If the EU decides to unify their military forces and ramp up spending to same level relative to GDP as the US (which with time would make for a larger and more capable military force than the US’s) there’s bugger all you can do about it. Preemptive strike against Europe? Good luck with that. A preemptive strike against China is only marginally more feasible.
Build advanced jet aircraft without a working rail system. Or reliable electricity. How about with your ports mined or just obliterated by JDAMs? What if every major dam and dike in your country has been breached? Major cities firebombed? Telephone and cell netoworks down? We have the capability to do all of that. I’m not talking about occupation, I’m talking about smashing and destruction… and we do that very very well.
The moment it goes nuclear it comes down to simple arithmetic…
The “Rest of the World XI” (primarily Russia and China) has enough nukes to wipe the US off the map.
Does the US have enough nukes to wipe the rest of the world of the map (i.e. EVERY single nation on the planet) ? If the most insignificant developing nation is left even slightly intact they win by default .
(1) European (and Japanese) defense forces have aircraft quite capable of matching your own. You’ll have trouble projecting that amount of force in the face of enemy air superiority unless you’re going nuclear.
(2) If somehow you do maintain sufficient air superiority to bomb at will, you’ll get your asses nuked eventually.
You’re talking about a WWII-style bombing campaign. Note that in WWII the bombing didn’t prevent the Germans from increasing military production throughout the war. Moreover you’re now talking about engaging in that level of bombing of the whole world. Forgive me but I really don’t think your airforce is up to that task. The world is a big place you know.
Cite?
They may have the planes, but they don’t have the numbers. In a non-nuclear scenario, why would we want to project force overseas anyway? Let everybody come to us. They can’t, so that’s that.
Note that the thread title speaks of an “enemy of collective nations?” It doesn’t mean every nation in the world will suddenly put every soldier in a dinghy and order them to row towards Washington DC.
How long could the Air Force keep up patrols if the oils from abroad suddenly stopped coming into the country? If the US decided to supplement its needs by seizing Canada or a Latin American nation, how far would it have to go to guarantee an adequate and reliable flow of resources? What of the nations that share military technology with the US (UK, Australia), how long to reverse engineer more advanced technology or gear economies to providing more resources for war?
No, they don’t. The US has a huge qualitative and quantitative edge in stealth and BVR technology with the F22, B2 and soon the JSF. We also have the only large scale and operational in flight refueling capablity plus we own the GPS network (the Euro version isn’t operational yet). This is not to mention our lead in AWAC, UCAV, heavy bomber and ground attack platforms. I’m not talking about WWII style carpet bombing (although our fleet of B-52s would be well up to the task once total air superiority was achieved) but precision bombing with the sole focus of dismantling the opponent’s infrastructure and means of production. The whole world doesn’t constitute a tangible threat in the scenario, only a handfull of countries in western Europe and east Asia have the industrial capacity to challenge us presently. We take them out first. One B2 stealth bomber can attack up to 80 individual targets with 500lb precision guided JDAM bombs and has proven to do so undetected. We have 21 of them. The scenario asked about conventional war, then nuclear… so yes, if the conflict went nuclear and it probably would, we would be signifcantly worse off but then so would all of the rest of the world. I focused my answer on the more interesting conventional warfare aspect.
Hell, the F16 has never been defeated in combat, and its stone age compared to the F22 and the F35.
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?
I thought the idea was the rest of the world attacks the US. After the war is over we work hard to forge alliances with much of the world.
In fact that is why the tactic of sparing those most incline to come back to your side makes sense. Under the threat of the gun make a unified North & Central America, but do it in such a way that the average Joe & Jose will not buck the system and welcome their new ‘corrupt’ political process. Pick a strong ally from Eurasia, maybe Russia this time and forge a strong military pack with them. Do everything possible to renew the strong ties with England, Australia and New Zealand. If possible, form a new larger commonwealth on the UK model. Take back Hong Kong for England and keep it.
Pursue a strong agro alliance with Brazil and Argentina along with Australia to secure an OPEC like hold over the exportable food market.
Disarm any unfriendly country of nuclear weapons and capability and if they resist, bomb them out again. No more UN BS after the entire world attacks the US. Keep the military on high alert and keep the draft going. Slowly enlarge the Navy and Air Force with the new Canadian and Latin American recruits.
BTW: Officially make the North American Union Tri-lingual with a strong emphasis on teaching English & Spanish in every school while protecting the French Canadian rights to their language. (Got to throw them a bone, we do not want too much civil unrest.)
Of course all of this will lead to the worst Military dictatorship of all time and we could forget about most civil liberties and eventually the NAU would look to expand, either in South America or Europe.
So in the end, the World will have won anyway as the America of the Constitution, that is of the people and for the people will be no more.
Jim
“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 ~